SOCIALISM  FROM  THE 
CHRISTIAN  STANDPOINT 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT  LOS  ANGELES 


GIFT   OF   CAPT.   AND    MRS. 
PAUL  MCBRIDE  PERIGORD 


IrfiTY  of  CALlt'OtHHtA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

LIBRARY 


SOCIALISM 

FROM    THE 

CHRISTIAN  STANDPOINT 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK    •    BOSTON  •    CHICAGO 
DALLAS   ■    SAN    FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •    BOMBAY   •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


s^^^^^^yt^^i^fvAiu^J^^^    y 


SOCIALISM 


FROM    THE 


CHRISTIAN   STANDPOINT 

TEN  CONFERENCES 
FATHER   BERNARD  VAIJ^^HAN,  S.J. 

AUTHOR    OF     "  THE    SINS    OF   SOCIETY,"      "  SOCIETY 

AND     THE     SAVIOUbJ^      >VlIFB  <  LESSONS 

FEOM  JOAN  q(£^(g,"  ET(^,  tlTC. 


r< 


\  \\'.\'\ 

\.S  '•  \ 

Weia  gortt 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

1912 

All  righU  regeroed 

144yti2 

Emprimi  Potest. 

ANTHONY  J.   MA  AS,    S.J., 

Provincial,  Maryland, 

New  York  Province. 

Ntbil  <©bstat. 

REMIGIUS  LAFORT,    S.T.D., 

Censor  Librorum. 

Jmprimatttt. 

►I^JOHN  CARDINAL  FARLEY, 

Archbishop  of  New  York, 

New  York,  November  14,  1912. 


COPTEIGHT,   1912, 

By  the   MACMILLAN   COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  November,  1912. 


•»  •••  •  •  «4 


Nortoooli  iPress 

J.  8.  Gushing  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


VAX 


DEDICATION 

I  dedicate  this  series  of  conferences  to  my  many  friends, 
in  many  walks  of  life,  who,  by  their  courtesy,  kindness,  and 
hospitality  during  my  stay  in  the  United  States,  have  placed 
me  under  an  indebtedness  which  I  can  never  hope  to  repay. 

The  memory  of  my  delightful  visit  to  the  States  of  America 
shall,  indeed,  live  on  in  freshness,  till  the  end  of  my  days, 
while,  so  long  as  God  permits  me  to  stand  at  His  Altar,  the 
names  of  my  dear  friends  shall  rise  up  before  Him  for  the 
fulness  of  His  choicest  blessings. 

More  it  is  not  given  me  to  do,  unless  it  be  to  express  the 
hope  that,  between  the  covers  of  this  book  they  may  find, 
not  inarticulately  uttered,  many  echoes  of  their  own  thoughts 
and  reasonings  about  Socialism. 


PREFACE 

It  is  at  the  earnest  and  repeated  request  of 
very  many  non-Catholics  as  well  as  Catholics 
who  heard  them,  that  I  am  venturing  to  pubUsh 
these  Conferences  on  Socialism  from  the  stand- 
point of  Christianity. 

Six  of  the  number  were  preached  during  the 
Lent  of  1912,  in  Saint  Patrick's  Cathedral,  New 
York.  To  make  the  set  more  complete,  and, 
I  hope  more  useful,  I  have  added  the  remaining 
four  addresses. 

May  I  make  bold  to  beg  my  readers  not  to  for- 
get, when  perusing  the  pages  of  this  book,  that 
they  are  rather  listening  to  the  spoken,  than 
reading  the  written,  word?  I  do  not  want  to 
"talk  like  a  book." 

These  Conferences  do  not  pretend  to  be  ex- 
haustive treatises  on  the  subject  with  which  they 
deal.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  meant  to  open 
up  vistas  of  thought,  while  they  themselves  deal 
rather  with  the  larger  principles  of  the  question 
than  enter  fully  into  the  scholastic  and  economic 
difficulties  to  which  they  give  rise. 

3 


4  PREFACE 

To  those  persons  who  have  persuaded  them- 
selves that  Socialism  is  no  menace  to  Creed  or 
Country,  I  should  Hke  to  point  out  that  it  is 
surely,  if  slowly,  gaining  gi'ound,  and  winning 
clients  all  the  world  over.  To-day,  in  Germany, 
Socialists  command  35  per  cent  of  the  total  elec- 
torate, occupy  110  seats  in  the  Reichstag,  and 
draw  4,252,000  votes.  Besides,  they  hold  2000 
official  positions  under  government,  and  they  can 
count  on  the  support  of  all  such  Labour  Unions  as 
are  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  revolt  against  Capi- 
tal. In  the  Fatherland,  Socialism  is  a  cult,  a 
religion  —  a  very  potent  factor  in  the  life  of  the 
nation. 

In  France,  too.  Socialism  is  alive,  active,  grow- 
ing, and  full  of  enterprise.  In  the  Chamber  there 
are  76  Socialist  Deputies,  while  no  less  than  2769 
of  them  hold  government  appointments. 

In  England,  with  its  42  members  of  Parlia- 
ment and  its  newly  formed  organization  and  its 
zealous  propaganda,  Socialism  has  already  done 
deeds  and  pushed  forward  measures  which  have 
forced  us  to  ask  with  the  poet, 

"  Who  can  tell  how  all  will  end  ?  " 

Surely  these  facts  alone  may  serve  to  remind 
my  readers  that  Socialism  is  not  "  the  vain  thing" 


PREFACE  5 

nor  "  the  negligible  quantity  "  which  some  writers 
would  have  us  believe. 

But  perhaps  nothing  better  teaches  us  the  hold 
which  Socialism  has  to-day  than  a  study  of  its 
press. 

It  is  the  press  which  forms  and  shapes  public 
opinion.  Nobody  understands  this  better  than 
the  SociaUst.  Accordingly,  wherever  SociaUsm  is 
strong,  there  its  press,  too,  is  strong.  In  Ger- 
many, it  publishes  159  papers ;  in  Italy,  92 ;  in 
France,  70 ;  in  Belgium,  56 ;  and  in  England,  12. 
The  "comrades"  are  thoroughly  organized,  they 
are  in  dead  earnest,  and  are  ready,  when  called 
upon,  to  make  any  sacrifice  in  the  interests  of 
their  cause. 

But  some  one  will  say,  "  Yes,  on  the  other  side 
of  the  Atlantic  SociaUsm  is,  indeed,  a  force  of 
growing  strength,  but  not  so  here  in  the  States. 
Why,  it  has  not  sent  even  one  single  '  comrade ' 
to  Congress.  It  has  not  the  ear  of  the  people." 
True,  the  Socialist  Party  is  without  a  single  rep- 
resentative in  Congress,  and  it  has  failed  to  carry 
other  political  positions;  but,  for  all  that,  we 
must  not  sit  down  with  folded  arms  and  flatter 
ourselves  that  Socialism  has  had  a  setback,  and 
is  becoming  weak  and  anaemic. 

Nothing  in  the  States  is  more  surely  growing ; 


6  PREFACE 

nothing  is  gathering  greater  strength ;  nothing  is 
more  violently  alive  to-day  than  Socialism. 

Take  what  it  did  in  New  York  State  yesterday, 
election  day.  Socialists  more  than  doubled  their 
vote.  In  New  York  City  they  counted  a  gain  of 
12,000,  in  Buffalo  a  gain  of  2400,  in  Rochester  a 
gain  of  200,  while  in  all  the  smaller  cities  the  vote 
has  been  twice  the  weight  it  was  in  1908. 

In  Greater  New  York,  Eugene  V.  Debs  polled 
33,423  votes  for  Presidency;  an  increase  of  7458 
on  his  1908  vote. 

Again,  look  at  California.  There  Socialists  have 
raised  their  vote  from  28,659  to  the  astonishing 
figure  66,350  ! 

To-day  California  leads  in  growth  of  the  social- 
ist vote,  Indiana  ranks  second,  and  Wisconsin 
comes  third.  Take  the  country  throughout,  and 
we  learn,  in  spite  of  the  losses  caused  by  the  New 
Party,  that  the  socialist  vote  has  run  all  the  way 
from  420,964  to  712,709. 

But  Socialism  in  the  United  States  must  not  be 
judged  only  by  its  political  vote.  There  is  some- 
thing on  which  it  relies  far  more,  something  for 
which  it  strives  far  more  energetically.  The 
Socialist  Party  takes  for  its  first  article  of  faith 
the  printed  word.  Already  they  are  issuing  13 
daiUes,  and  are  adding  4  more ;  they  publish  350 


PREFACE  7 

weeklies,  and  are  increasing  that  number;  they 
owTi  25  monthhes  and,  besides,  many  hundred 
"Locals." 

Socialist  Propagandists  are,  perhaps,  even  more 
active  on  the  "  Capitalist "  magazine  and  news- 
paper than  upon  their  own.  I  am  assured  that  it 
would  be  no  easy  matter  to  give  a  list  of  news- 
paper and  magazine  oflSces  in  which  Socialists  are 
not  occupying  responsible  positions. 

Certain  it  is  that  we  find  quite  a  plentiful  sup- 
ply of  articles  in  our  current  literature  written  by 
"  comrades." 

Behold  the  platforms  from  which  they  harangue 
the  people,  and  through  which  they  enlist  recruits 
by  the  thousand  ! 

Besides  reljdng  on  the  written,  they  confide  no 
less  on  the  spoken  word ;  the  national  headquar- 
ters maintains  a  staff  of  organized  agitators 
under  salary.  Much  care  is  also  taken,  and  no 
little  money  is  spent  in  training  a  large  corps  of 
soap-box  orators,  whose  mission  it  is  to  orate  on 
street  corners  and  in  the  parks.  In  the  Rand 
school  these  enthusiasts  are  grouped  and  taught 
their  business. 

The  more  we  investigate  the  matter,  the  more 
thoroughly  convinced  we  become  that  Socialism 
in  the  United  States  needs  watching,  lest  like  a 


8  PREFACE 

sand-storm  or  a  forest  fire,  a  cyclone  or  an  ava- 
lanche, it  may  assume  proportions  and  gather  a 
momentum  almost  impossible  to  deal  with. 

Study  Socialism  for  yourselves  as  it  is  in  your 
midst,  and  you  will  discover  that  it  is  "a  live 
wire  "  and  waiting  to  be  switched  on,  "to  give 
light,"  say  the  "  comrades  "  ;  "to  spread  ruin  ! " 
exclaim  patriots. 

But  even  upon  the  supposition  that  Socialism 
was  a  theory  in  the  air  only,  with  no  practical 
outlook  at  all,  it  would  still  be  the  duty  of  Catho- 
lics to  point  out  that  economically  it  is  unsound, 
philosophically  it  is  false,  and  ethically  it  is 
wrong.  Bad  in  theory,  it  would  be  even  worse 
in  practice. 

As  Catholics,  we  must  try  and  bring  back  to 
Christianity  from  Socialism  all  persons  who  have 
been  smitten  and  captured  by  its  plausible  teach- 
ings. It  is  up  to  us  "to  blaze  the  trail,"  and 
to  lead  them  from  the  desert,  pathless,  and  bar- 
ren lands  of  Socialism,  over  "  the  great  divide," 
down  through  forests,  and  over  foothills,  into 
the  vine  slopes  and  the  fertile  valleys  of  the 
Christian  Fold,  to  the  feet  of  the  Good  Shepherd, 
Christ  Jesus,  our  Lord. 

In  conclusion  let  me  plead  with  my  indul- 
gent   readers    to    take   into    consideration    that 


PREFACE  9 

these  Conferences  were  prepared  for  publica- 
tion between  pulpit  and  platform  engagements, 
and  while  voyaging  by  sea  and  journeying  on 
land  between  the  Hudson  and  the  Yukon.  Books 
of  reference  were  not  get-at-able  en  route.  There 
were  no  Ubraries  on  the  Ice-fields,  none  amid  the 
Rockies.  Accordingly,  in  some  instances,  I  was 
forced  to  be  satisfied  with  my  notes  without  giv- 
ing the  references. 

I  wish  to  express  my  warm  thanks  to  Father 
C.  Plater,  S.J.,  and  Father  Husslein,  S.J.,  for  the 
kind  help  I  have  received  from  them. 

BERNARD  VAUGHAN,  S.J. 

St.  Ign'atius's, 
980  Park  Avenue,  New  York, 
November  7,  1912. 


CONTENTS 


T.  Socialism 

n.  Socialism 

in.  Socialism 

IV.  Socialism 

V.  Socialism 

VI.  Socialism 

VTI.  Socialism 

VIIL  Socialism 

IX.  Socialism 

X.  Socialism 


PACK 

AND  THE  Papacy         ....  13 

AXD  THE  State 40 

AND  THE  Individual          ...  72 

AND  THE  Family        ....  118 

AND  Religion 153 

AND  Christian  Socialists        .        .  198 

AND  THE  Rights  of  Ownership      .  237 

AND  THE  Duties  of  Ownership        .  278 

AND  ITS  Promises       ....  312 

AND  Social  Reformation         .        .  330 


11 


SOCIALISM    FROM    THE    CHRISTIAN 
STANDPOINT 

I 

SOCIALISM  AND   THE   PAPACY 

A  FEW  years  ago,  during  a  visit  to  Rome,  I  had 
the  privilege  of  hearing  from  our  present  Pontiff, 
Pius  X,  personal,  paternal  advice  as  to  what  I 
considered  my  own  special  mission  and  work  in 
life. 

I  was  explaining  to  the  Holy  Father  how  my 
ambition  was  to  do  something  for  the  poor  workers 
in  the  slums,  and  at  the  same  time  help  to  get  the 
truths  of  Christianity  before  those  who  were  en- 
joying the  better  things  of  life.  Then  it  was  the 
Holy  Father  told  me  that  in  all  I  said  or  did  I 
was  ever  to  keep  in  mind  the  great  principles  of 
Catholic  teaching,  expounded  in  the  Encyclicals 
of  his  predecessor,  Leo  XIH. 

''In  those  Encyclicals,"  said  His  Holiness,  "you 
will  find  clearly  marked  out  the  course  of  action 
that  Catholics  must  follow  in  the  great  social 
movements  of  the  day."     Then   Pope  Pius  ex- 

13 


14  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

plained  how,  in  his  own  Encyclical,  on  Christian 
Democracy,  published  in  1903,  I  should  find, 
taken  from  the  writings  of  his  predecessor,  nineteen 
propositions  which  laid  down  the  truths  that  must 
ever  be  maintained  by  Catholics  in  regard  to  au- 
thority and  its  origin,  the  State  and  its  functions, 
the  family  and  its  duties,  the  rights  and  duties  of 
property,  capital,  and  labour. 

So,  when  the  privilege  came  to  give  a  course 
of  Conferences  in  this  Cathedral,  I  thought  I 
could  do  nothing  better  than  follow  up  the 
thought  and  teaching  of  that  great  Pontiff,  Leo 
XIII,  on  the  various  phases  of  the  social  move- 
ment, and  which  Pope  Pius  X  tells  us,  in  his  letter 
on  Christian  Democracy,  should  be  posted  up  in 
the  offices  of  Catholic  organizations,  and  fre- 
quently read  at  their  meetings. 

And,  indeed,  to  whom  are  we  to  turn  for  light 
and  guidance  in  regard  to  those  far-reaching 
social  questions  of  the  time,  if  not  to  the  Vicar  of 
Him  who  said :  ''I  am  the  Way,  and  the  Truth, 
and  the  Life"  ? 

I  know,  at  once,  what  the  enemies  of  the  Catholic 
Church  will  say.  They  will  say :  "You  are  going 
to  the  wrong  source  for  light.  The  sympathies 
of  the  Pope  are  on  the  side  of  the  capitalist,  and 
he  takes  little,  or,  at  least,  no  deep  interest  in  the 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  PAPACY  15 

toiling  masses."  This  is  a  charge  made  against 
the  Papacy ;  a  charge  repeated,  insisted  on,  and 
forced  upon  the  labom'ing  man ;  it  is  a  charge  I 
must  dispose  of  at  the  very  outset  of  these  Con- 
ferences. 

What,  then,  let  me  ask  you,  has  been  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Pope  in  regard  to  the  bread-winners 
during  the  past  nineteen  hundred  years,  during 
which,  as  Head  of  Christ's  Chiu'ch,  he  has  sat  in 
the  Chair  of  Peter?  This  is  the  question  I  am 
going  to  answer  to-day. 

Let  us,  for  the  moment,  assume  that  the  Pope, 
as  a  rule,  has  been  on  the  side  of  those  in  authority. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  has  sometimes  even  lifted 
his  hands  in  blessing  over  the  autocrat.  Auto- 
crats are  not  much  in  favour  nowadays.  We 
have  no  use  for  them ;  and  consequently  some  of 
us  think  that  the  Pope,  who  blessed  autocrats 
in  a  day  gone  by,  must  have  sided  with  them  in 
their  oppression  of  the  working  classes.  Noth- 
ing could  be  further  from  the  truth. 

We  must  be  careful  not  to  judge  of  mediaeval 
Europe  as  though  it  were  a  present-day  civiliza- 
tion. There  have  been  ages  in  which  autocrats 
were  not  only  useful,  but  in  a  measure  necessary. 
Without  them  there  would  have  been  no  govern- 
ment at  all,  no  safety,  no  asylum  for  the  weak, 


16  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

no  protection  for  the  oppressed.  There  have 
been  times,  in  the  dark  past,  when  the  one  thing 
wanted  was  a  strong  hand,  an  effective  rule  to 
hold  society  from  crumbling  into  atoms,  and  to 
defend  the  individual  from  being  plundered  or 
murdered  by  his  neighbours.  Look,  for  instance, 
at  the  warring  Anglo-Saxons  brought  out  of  their 
chaos  by  the  strong  hand  of  the  Church-supported 
despot  of  Wessex.  The  strong  hand  may  have 
been  a  cruel  hand,  but  it  established  order  of  some 
sort  in  a  day  when  the  poor  man  sought  and  craved 
for  help  of  any  sort. 

"The  feudal  lord,"  says  Laf argue,  ''only  holds 
his  land  and  possesses  a  claim  on  the  labour  and 
harvests  of  his  tenants  and  vassals  on  condition  of 
doing  suit  and  service  to  his  superiors  and  lending 
aid  to  his  dependents.  On  accepting  the  oath  of 
fealty  and  homage  the  lord  engaged  to  protect 
his  vassal  against  all  and  sundry  by  all  the  means 
at  his  command ;  in  return  for  which  support  the 
vassal  was  bound  to  render  military  and  personal 
service  and  make  certain  payments  to  his  lord. 
The  latter  in  his  turn,  for  the  sake  of  protection, 
commended  himself  to  a  more  puissant  feudal  lord, 
who  himself  stood  in  the  relation  of  vassalage  to 
a  suzerain,  to  the  king  or  emperor. 

"  All  the  members  of  the  feudal  hierarchy,  from 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE   PAPACY  17 

the  serf  upwards  to  the  king  or  emperor,  were 
bound  by  the  ties  of  reciprocal  duties."  ^  Even 
Hillquit,  the  Socialist,  is  compelled  to  acknowledge 
that :  ''Under  the  existing  conditions  of  the  times 
the  class  of  nobility  was,  therefore,  on  the  whole  a 
socially  useful  class." 

And  so  it  came  to  pass.  Popes  said  gracious 
things  to  various  autocratic  kings  and  domineer- 
ing nobles,  who  some  may  think  never  deserved 
any  encouragement  at  all.  But  does  this  ex- 
ceptional action  of  the  Pope  mean  that  his  sym- 
pathies were  with  despotism,  or  that  he  approved 
and  encouraged  the  oppression  of  the  wage-earning 
classes  ?     By  no  means. 

The  Pope  has  ever  been  the  champion  of  the 
toiler,  the  defender  of  the  weak,  the  advocate  of 
the  down-trodden,  and  the  poor  man's  best  friend. 
Cardinal  Newman  has  well  said  that  there  is  no 
one  of  those  who  speaks  bravely  against  the  Church 
to-day  but  owes  it  to  the  Church  that  he  can  speak 
at  all.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  wage- 
earner.  If  any  power  can  be  said  to  have  brought 
him  into  being  and  given  him  a  social  status,  that 
power  is  none  other  than  Christ's  Vicar,  the  Pope 
of  Rome. 

This  will  appear  to  be  an  unwarranted  state- 

1  "  The  Evolution  of  Property." 


18  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

ment  to  those  who  are  not  famiUar  with  history, 
or  who  have  been  brought  up  on  history  written 
by  the  avowed  enemies  of  the  Papacy.  Popular 
hterature,  I  grant  you,  is  against  me,  Protestant 
fiction  is  against  me,  and  non-CathoHc  tradition 
is  against  me,  Sociahsts,  of  course,  are  against 
me,  for  their  explanation  of  all  changes  in  history 
is  based  upon  economic  conditions ;  but  the  writ- 
ings of  impartial  Protestant  historians  are  on  my 
side. 

Let  me,  first  of  all,  recall  a  few  well-supported 
facts,  and  cite  a  few  fully  recognized  authorities 
in  support  of  my  contention.  We  need  not  go 
back  to  the  beginning  of  the  Papacy;  it  will  be 
enough  to  start  with  what  are  called  the  Dark 
Ages  —  roughly,  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries  of 
our  Christian  era.  Alas  !  They  may  indeed  be 
called  dark,  for  they  recall  a  period  of  destruc- 
tion, of  desolation,  an  age  almost  of  despair.  It 
was  a  time  when  Europe  was  harried  from  end 
to  end  bj''  Northmen,  Mohammedans,  and  Mag- 
yars. The  very  existence  of  Christianity,  even 
in  Europe,  seemed  to  be  threatened.  The  his- 
torian Gibbon,  referring  to  it,  has  described  a 
scene  that  actually  might  have  been  witnessed ; 
England  under  a  Caliph,  with  Mullahs  lecturing  in 
the  Colleges  of  Oxford.     Scarcely  can  we  call  the 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE   PAPACY  19 

picture  overdrawn.  It  was  one  that  might  have 
been  enacted  at  that  famous  seat  of  learning. 

How  did  Europe  save  herself  ?  By  the  creation 
of  a  military  caste.  We  call  the  rule  of  this  caste 
Feudalism.  Politically,  it  worked  out  as  local 
despotism.  Against  it  the  workingman  was  power- 
less and  hopeless.  In  those  days  the  workingman 
had  no  organization  to  support  him,  no  press  to 
make  known  his  wrongs,  no  public  opinion  to  which 
to  appeal.  How  could  he,  helpless,  alone,  on  foot, 
with  only  a  hoe  for  a  weapon,  hold  his  own  against 
a  mail-clad  knight,  on  horseback,  armed  with  a 
lance  ?  He  had  to  lie  dowTi  and  crawl  under  the 
heel  of  tyranny.     But  now  all  this  is  changed. 

Consider  the  wage-earner  of  to-day  as  a  mem- 
ber of  a  trade-union.  Picture  him  as  he  stands  — 
erect,  keen-eyed  and  keen-witted,  attending  a  con- 
gress as  the  representative  of  his  fellows.  Add 
up,  if  you  will,  the  strong  sanctions  that  hedge 
him  round  about ;  note  the  bulwarks  that  protect 
him.  His  personal  liberty  is  secured,  it  is  in- 
violate ;  the  courts  of  law  throw  open  their  doors 
to  him,  the  press  is  eager  to  report  his  words, 
his  fellows  to  a  man  are  at  his  back ;  in  a  word, 
he  is  welded  into  a  strong  and  closely-knit  organi- 
zation with  his  brother  workers.  I  do  not,  for 
a  moment,  pretend  to  say  that  his  position  is 


20  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

satisfactory,  even  now,  but  he  certainly  enjoys 
a  measui'e  of  protection  which  not  the  furthest- 
reaching  prophetic  vision  in  the  Dark  Ages  could 
have  foreseen. 

In  the  Dark  Ages  our  brother  workers  were 
without  redress  when  tyrannized  over  by  the 
wealthy.  The  servant  was  the  creature  of  his 
master,  living  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand.  It  was 
the  rule  of  the  stronger,  hard  and  often  pitiless. 

How  could  it  be  otherwise  when  there  were  no 
elements  of  cohesion  among  the  down-trodden 
people,  no  unifying  principle  giving  them  a  voice- 
controlling  force?  How  was  liberty,  even  in  its 
most  elementary  form,  to  take  root  in  a  soil  so 
uncompromising  as  this  ?  How  was  Democracy 
to  spring  out  of  a  social  order  in  which  popular 
initiative  was  an  utter  impossibility  ? 

Yet,  incredible  as  it  may  seem,  we  do  find,  if 
we  turn  over  a  few  pages  of  later  history,  that  the 
workingman  is  practically  emancipated  and  is  able 
to  stand  up  and  assert  himself.  He  is  beginning  to 
take  an  active  and  intelligent  part  in  the  demo- 
cratic government  of  well-nigh  every  country  in 
Europe.  Now,  what  I  want  to  know  is,  how  was 
this  glorious  change  brought  about  ?  Whence,  let 
me  ask,  came  the  ideas  of  liberty  and  democratic 
government  and,  more  important  still,   whence 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  PAPACY  21 

came  the  motive  power  which  gave  shape  and 
meaning  to  those  ideas,  converting  them  into  deeds 
of  poHcy  and  Hfe  ?  The  answer  is  this  :  In  those 
days,  the  Chm-ch  had  the  monopoly  of  ideas,  and 
whatever  large  and  Imninous  ideas  rose  above  the 
horizon  sprang  from  her. 

Observe,  that  apart  from  the  teaching  of  the 
monks,  even  the  mail-coated  knight  would  have 
been  more  ignorant  than  the  dullest  of  our  pres- 
ent-day peers,  while  the  serf  could  no  more  have 
launched  an  idea  on  the  public  than  a  present-day 
Patagonian  child  could  write  an  editorial  for  one 
of  our  great  Metropolitan  papers.  Any  luminous 
ideas,  which  in  those  days  flashed  across  men's 
minds  and  were  impressed  on  their  lives,  came 
from  the  Church,  and  were  spread  abroad  like 
sun  rays  from  monastery  and  cathedral  schools, 
which  were  centres  of  light  and  learning. 

A  religious  education,  incomparably  superior 
to  the  mere  athleticism  of  the  noble's  hall,  was 
granted,  for  the  mere  asking,  to  the  meanest  serf. 
This  tremendous  fact  alone,  by  proclaiming  the 
dignity  of  the  individual,  elevated  the  hopes  and 
destinies  of  the  entire  race.  This  humanizing 
machinery  of  schools  and  universities,  coupled 
with  the  civilizing  propaganda  of  missionary  zeal, 
was  the  Church's  work,  and  hers  alone. 


22  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

Why,  her  very  existence  amid  the  people  was  a 
liberal  education,  showing  as  it  did  that  successive 
ages  were  not  sporadic  and  accidental  scenes,  but 
continuous  and  coherent  acts  of  one  great  and 
marvellous  drama.  ''In  dim  but  magnificent  pro- 
cession," as  a  writer  reminds  us,  "the  giant  forms 
of  empires,  on  their  way  to  ruin,  ceded  to  her  their 
sceptres,  bequeathed  to  her  their  gifts.  Life  be- 
came one  broad,  rejoicing  river,  whose  tributaries, 
once  severed,  were  now  united,  and  whose  majestic 
stream,  without  one  break  in  its  continuity,  flowed 
on  under  the  common  sunlight,  from  its  source 
beneath  the  throne  of  God." 

Referring  to  this  period  a  well-known  Anglican 
historian  reminds  us  that,  ''The  Church  was  the 
one  mighty  witness  for  light  in  an  age  of  darkness, 
for  order  in  an  age  of  lawlessness,  for  personal 
holiness  in  an  epoch  of  licentious  rage.  Amid  the 
despotism  of  kings  and  the  turbulence  of  aristoc- 
racies, it  was  an  inestimable  blessing  that  there 
should  be  a  power  which,  by  the  unarmed  majesty 
of  simple  goodness,  made  the  haughtiest  and  the 
boldest  respect  the  interests  of  justice,  and  tremble 
at  the  thought  of  temperance,  righteousness,  and  the 
judgment  to  come."  (Farrar's  "Hulsean  Lectures 
for  1870,"  p.  115,  Lect.  iii,  The  Victories  of  Chris- 
tianity.) 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  PAPACY  23 

M.  Guizot  says:  ''There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  Chui'ch  struggled  resolutely  against  the 
great  vices  of  the  social  state,  —  against  slavery, 
for  instance ; .  .  .  lastly,  she  strove  by  all  sorts 
of  means  to  restrain  violence  and  continued  war- 
fare in  society.  Every  one  knows  what  was  the 
Truce  of  God,  and  numerous  measures  of  a  similar 
kind,  by  which  the  Church  struggled  against  the 
employment  of  force,  and  strove  to  introduce  more 
order  and  gentleness  into  society.  These  facts  are 
so  well  known  that  it  is  needless  for  me  to  enter 
into  details. "  ("History  of  Civilization,"  Lect.  vi. 
Cf.  Balmez,  "European  Civilization,"  Eng.  Trans., 
p.  66  et  seq.) 

But  I  pass  on  to  ask  whence  sprang  the  fair 
flower  of  Catholic  Democracy  which  put  forth 
its  leaves  and  flowers,  and  ripened  into  fruit 
in  those  days  gone  by?  There  was  only  one  soil 
on  this  planet  out  of  which  so  fine  a  thing  could 
have  sprung.  That  soil  was  the  soil  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church.  Turn  to  the  pages  of  history  and 
recall  who  were  the  men  who  dared  to  stand  up 
in  Europe  to  rebuke  the  wickedness  and  injustice 
of  tyrants.  They  were  the  bishops  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church.  Was  it  not  a  St.  Anselm  who  spoke 
up  fearlessly  for  the  people  in  those  days,  as  did 
Cardinal  Manning,  in  our  own  time,  in  London  ? 


24  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

When  the  great  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury  rode 
out  of  Northampton  we  are  told  that  huge  crowds 
escorted  him,  hung  about  him  lamenting,  weep- 
ing, for  they  saw  in  him  their  protector,  much  as 
in  the  days  of  our  grandfathers  the  people  of  Italy 
flocked  to  greet  an  exiled  Pope,  unharnessed  the 
horses  from  the  shafts,  and  triumphantly  drew  his 
carriage,  shouting  themselves  hoarse  with  their 
cries  of  welcome  and  love.  Who,  too,  let  me  ask, 
was  it  that  secured  for  his  people  on  the  other 
side  of  the  ocean  the  great  palladium  of  their 
liberties,  the  Magna  Charta  ?  It  was  a  prelate  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  Stephen,  —  Cardinal  Lang- 
ton.  Catholicism,  I  tell  you,  is  woven  into  the 
warp  and  woof  of  all  our  great  democratic  in- 
stitutions, and  it  is  the  bishops  of  that  Church  to 
whom  Democracy  stands  eternally  indebted. 

Again,  Christian  teaching  itself  is  preeminently 
democratic.  It  looks  to  the  life  to  come.  It 
points  to  a  narrow  way  by  which  all  must  go, 
and  to  the  narrow  gate  by  which  all  alike  must 
enter.  Observe  there  is  no  ''Servant's  Bell"  or 
"Tradesmen's  entrance"  to  the  Gate  of  Heaven. 
There  is  but  one  beU  for  all  Christian  pilgrims  alike 
at  the  end  of  life's  journey.  If  in  Heaven  there 
be  any  aristocracy  at  all,  it  will  be  the  poor,  the 
brethren  of  the  reputed  Son  of  the  Carpenter  of 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE   PAPACY  25 

Nazareth.  The  Church  treats  all  her  children 
alike ;  —  in  her  ministry  she  recognizes  no  class 
distinctions.  To  say,  as  most  sociaUst  writers  do, 
that  the  Church  always  sided  with  the  ruling  class 
is  a  libel  on  history. 

In  a  day  gone  by  you  might  have  seen  knight 
and  serf  bowing  in  the  same  Cathedral  to  re- 
ceive absolution  of  the  same  priest,  himself  per- 
haps a  peasant,  as  to-day  the  first  of  priests,  the 
Pope,  is  a  peasant's  son.  What  was  seen  then  is 
witnessed  now,  when  prince  and  peasant  unite  in 
the  same  spiritual  exercises. 

Did  time  permit,  it  would  be  pleasant  to  re- 
call how  the  sanctuary  checked  the  hand  of  the 
smiter  until  the  first  heat  of  his  anger  and  re- 
venge had  cooled  down ;  to  recall  how  the  people 
gathered  to  see  miracle  plays,  those  moralities 
and  mysteries  which  we  are  now  trying  to  bring 
back ;  to  recall  how  the  foot-worn,  dust-covered 
traveller  was  asked  no  questions  as  to  his  social 
position  when,  at  nightfall,  he  sought  the  shelter 
of  a  religious  house.  The  religious  monastery 
or  convent  was,  as  everybody  knew  full  well, 
open  to  all  alike,  to  young  and  old,  learned  and 
unlettered,  rich  and  poor.  At  Whalley  Abbey, 
in  England,  standing  midway  between  Lancaster 
and  Manchester,  and  rising  on  the  edge  of  Pendle 


26  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

forest,  infested  by  wolves,  the  Cistercian  monks 
gave  free  hospitality  for  three  days  to  any  pil- 
grim, whether  he  was  prince,  peer,  or  peasant. 
So  freely  was  this  service  accepted  that  two-thirds 
of  the  monastic  revenue  was  spent  on  guests. 
Make  no  mistake:  altruism  is  no  discovery  of  our 
day.  It  has  been  the  sacred  practice  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  always,  all  the  world  over.  But  in 
those  days  it  was  not  called  altruism,  it  was  called 
Christian  charity. 

Speaking  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  those  cen- 
turies, the  historian  Lecky  says  that  she  ^'laid 
the  very  foundations  of  modern  civilization.  Her- 
self the  most  admirable  of  all  organizations,  there 
were  formed  beneath  her  influence  a  vast  net- 
work of  organizations,  political,  municipal,  and 
social,  which  supplied  a  large  proportion  of  the 
materials  of  almost  every  modern  structure." 

Let  me  further  support  my  contention  by  citing 
yet  another  non-Catholic,  Dr.  Cutts,  who  writes : 
''One  reason  of  the  popularity  of  the  mediaeval 
Church  was  that  it  had  always  been  the  cham- 
pion of  the  people  and  the  friend  of  the  poor.  In 
politics  the  Church  was  always  on  the  side  of  the 
liberties  of  the  people  against  the  tyranny  of  the 
feudal  lords.  In  the  eye  of  the  nobles  the  labouring 
population  were  beings  of  an  inferior  caste,  in  the 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  PAPACY  27 

eye  of  the  Law  thej^  were  chattels ;  in  the  eye  of 
the  Church  they  were  brethren  in  Christ,  souls  to 
be  won  and  trained  and  fitted  for  Heaven." 

I  might  cite  a  score  of  other  authorities  show- 
ing how  impossible  it  is  to  read  the  mediaeval 
history  of  Europe  without  being  convinced  that 
it  is  to  the  CathoUc  Church  and  to  her  policy 
and  teaching,  rather  than  to  mere  "economic 
developments,"  that  the  toiling  classes  owe  their 
emancipation  from  slavery  to  serfdom,  and  from 
serfdom  to  liberty. 

"But  the  Church,"  some  one  listening  to  me 
may  object,  "is  not  the  Pope.  What  part  did  the 
Pope  play  in  the  creation  of  the  democratic 
spirit?"  The  Church,  indeed,  is  not  the  Pope, 
but  the  Church  could  never  have  defended  pop- 
ular liberties  except  in  so  far  as  she  was  in 
union  with  the  Pope.  A  mere  national  Church 
can  never  stand  up  before  a  king  on  behalf  of 
popular  liberties.  But  in  those  days,  called  the 
Dark  Ages,  churchmen  did  stand  up  to  kings 
and  nobles  precisely  because  their  union  with 
the  Pope  of  Rome  put  into  their  hands  a  mighty 
power  that  transcended  and  defied  all  the  barriers 
of  nationality. 

Had  temporal  lords  in  those  days  been  the 
supreme   heads   of   local    churches,    they   would 


28  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

have  retained  their  seats  on  horseback,  while  the 
serf  would  have  remained  tied  to  the  land,  with- 
out champion  to  plead  his  cause  or  to  fight  his 
battles.  Why,  the  thing  is  going  on  under  our 
very  eyes  to-day.  What  could  an  Erastian  Church, 
like  the  Russian  Church  to-day,  do,  were  it  to  be 
subjected  to  an  attack  such  as  that  which  is  being 
levelled  against  the  Church  in  France  ?  Suppose 
that  the  President  of  the  French  Republic  had 
been  also  the  head  of  the  French  Church,  where 
could  the  Episcopacy  of  France  have  drawn 
strength  to  oppose  him  and  to  hold  their  own,  as 
they  have  done,  to  their  imperishable  glory? 
Why  did  the  Catholic  Church  in  my  own  country 
go  under?  It  was  because  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury the  Church  in  England  was  half  Erastianized. 
This  is  why  it  succumbed  to  the  tyranny  of  that 
monster  of  iniquity,  the  Eighth  Henry.  England 
was  cut  off  from  Rome.  Its  people  could  no  longer 
appeal  to  a  higher  court.  It  found  itself  caught 
in  a  trap  and  severed  from  the  champion  of  its 
liberties,  the  Pope. 

Some  of  my  hearers  may  have  no  sympathy 
with  Christianity.  They  may  be  glad  to  see  the 
Christian  Churches  Erastianized  and  made  the 
tools  of  the  secular  power.  I  am  not  contesting 
such  an  opinion  here.     I  am  merely  pointing  out 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   PAPACY  29 

that  had  the  mediaeval  Church  been  Erastian, 
popular  liberties  could  never  have  been  vindi- 
cated.    It  was  the  Pope  that  set  us  free. 

The  Rev.  H.  Milman,  D.D.  (late  Dean  of  St. 
Paul's),  writing  of  a  time  when  anarchy  threat- 
ened the  whole  West  of  Europe,  and  had  already 
almost  enveloped  Italy  in  ruin  and  destruction, 
says:  ''Now  was  the  crisis  in  which  the  Papacy 
must  reawaken  its  obscured  and  suspended  life. 
It  was  the  only  power  which  lay  not  entirely  and 
absolutely  prostrate  before  the  disasters  of  the 
times  —  a  power  which  had  an  inherent  strength, 
and  might  resume  its  majesty.  It  was  this  power 
which  was  most  imperatively  required  to  preserve 
all  which  was  to  survive  out  of  the  crumbling 
wreck  of  Roman  civilization.  To  Western  Chris- 
tianity was  absolutely  necessary  a  centre,  standing 
alone,  strong  in  traditionary  reverence  and  in 
acknowledged  claims  to  supremacy.  Even  the 
perfect  organization  of  the  Christian  hierarchy 
might  in  all  human  probability  have  fallen  to 
pieces  in  perpetual  conflict ;  it  might  have  de- 
generated into  a  half-secular  feudal  caste,  with 
hereditary  benefices,  more  and  more  entirely  sub- 
servient to  the  civil  authority,  a  priesthood  of  each 
nation  or  each  tribe,  gradually  sinking  to  the  in- 
tellectual or  religious  level  of  the  nation  or  tribe. 


30  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

On  the  rise  of  a  power  both  controlling  and  con- 
servative hung,  humanly  speaking,  the  life  and 
death  of  Christianity  —  of  Christianity  as  a  per- 
manent, aggressive,  expansive,  and,  to  a  certain 
extent,  uniform  system.  There  must  be  a  counter- 
balance to  barbaric  force,  to  the  unavoidable  an- 
archy of  Teutonism,  with  its  tribal,  or  at  the  ut- 
most national,  independence,  forming  a  host  of 
small  conflicting,  antagonistic  kingdoms.  ...  It 
is  impossible  to  conceive  what  had  been  the  con- 
fusion, the  lawlessness,  the  chaotic  state  of  the 
Middle  Ages  without  the  mediaeval  Papacy;  and 
of  the  mediaeval  Papacy,  the  real  father  is  Gregory 
the  Great."  (Book  iii,  Ch.  vii,  Vol.  ii,  pp. 
100-102.) 

M.  Ancillon,  a  French  Calvinist,  says:  ''Dur- 
ing the  Middle  Ages,  when  there  was  no  social 
order,  the  Papacy  alone,  perhaps,  saved  Europe 
from  utter  barbarism.  It  created  bonds  of  con- 
nection between  the  most  distant  nations ;  it  was 
a  common  centre,  a  rallying-point  for  isolated 
states.  It  was  a  supreme  tribunal  established  in 
the  midst  of  universal  anarchy;  and  its  decrees 
were  sometimes  as  respectable  as  they  were  re- 
spected ;  it  prevented  and  arrested  the  despotism 
of  the  emperors  and  diminished  the  evils  of  the 
feudal  system."     ("Tableau  des  Revolutions  du 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  PAPACY  31 

Systeme  Politique  de  rEurope,"  Vol.  i,  Introd., 
pp.  133,  157.) 

The  German  Protestant  Church  historian, 
Staudlein,  says :  — 

"The  Papacy  was  productive  of  many  beneficial 
effects.  ...  It  united  in  one  common  bond  the 
different  European  nations,  furthered  their  mu- 
tual intercourse,  and  became  a  channel  for  the 
communication  of  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  with- 
out it  the  fine  arts,  doubtless,  would  not  have  at- 
tained to  so  high  a  degree  of  perfection.  The 
Papal  power  restrained  political  despotism,  and 
from  the  rude  multitude  kept  off  many  of  the  vices 
of  barbarism."  {"  Universal  Church  History," 
Hanover,  1806,  p.  203.) 

Herder,  another  eminent  non-Catholic  writer, 
says : — 

''It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  Roman  hierarchy 
was  a  necessary  power,  without  which  there  would 
have  been  no  check  upon  the  untutored  nations 
of  the  Middle  Ages.  Without  it,  Europe  would 
have  fallen  under  the  power  of  a  despot,  would 
have  become  a  theatre  of  interminable  conflicts, 
and  have  been  converted  into  a  Mongolian  desert." 
("  Ideas  on  the  History  of  Mankind,"  Part  iv,  p. 
303.     Cf.  p.  194  seq.) 

Here  some  one  may  rise  up  and  protest :  "  It  may 


32  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

be  true  that  the  Pope  was  the  champion  of  the 
labouring  man  before  the  Reformation,  but  what 
about  the  Papacy  since  that  day  ?  "  Fearlessly 
Catholics  may  proclaim  that  the  Popes  after  the 
Reformation,  as  well  as  before  it,  have  been  on 
the  side  of  the  toiling  classes.  Already  there 
are  large  numbers  of  workingmen  on  whom  the 
truth  at  last  is  beginning  to  dawn. 

True,  the  Reformation  and  the  Revolution 
swept  away  the  old  Catholic  guilds  and  the  old 
Catholic  crafts  and  confraternities,  but  they  did 
not  sweep  away  the  Catholic  Church.  She  stands 
on  the  rock  of  ages,  and  not  even  Hell  itself  can  pre- 
vail against  her.  Thanks  be  to  God,  old  Catholic 
traditions  are  seen  reviving  to-day  in  the  Catholic 
social  movement  in  Germany,  in  France,  in  Bel- 
gium, in  England,  and  on  this  vast  continent  of 
the  New  World.  We  are  getting  the  best  teaching 
of  the  Middle  Ages  reasserted.  The  social  action 
of  the  Church  is  being  renewed,  and  nowhere  more 
so  than  on  this  great  continent,  where,  under  the 
stars  and  stripes,  the  Catholic  Church  is  impressing 
upon  the  community  the  lesson  that  the  better 
the  Christian,  the  better  the  citizen. 

The  movement  received  new  vigour  when  Pope 
Leo  XIII  issued  his  great  Encyclical  on  Labour, 
which  rightly  may  be  called  the  workingman's 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE   PAPACY  33 

charter  —  the  Magna  Charta  of  the  working 
classes.  That  EncycUcal  is  being  preached  all 
the  world  over.  The  American  Episcopate  has 
done  much  to  make  it  known,  and  American  citi- 
zens not  of  our  faith  are  beginning  to  realize 
that  the  Catholic  Church  is  the  promoter  of  true 
liberty,  the  friend  of  Democracy,  and  the  advocate 
of  all  that  is  uplifting  to  the  submerged,  to  the 
oppressed,  to  the  sweated. 

Meantime,  there  remain  many  grievances  to 
be  redressed,  terrible  chasms  to  be  bridged  over, 
hideous  cruelties  to  be  stopped,  and  innumerable 
problems  to  be  solved.  I  need  not  review  the 
situation.  It  is  reviewed  monthly  in  your  peri- 
odicals, weekly  in  your  journals,  daily  in  the 
press.  There  is  no  one  who  has  summed  up  those 
evils  more  convincingly  than  Pope  Leo  XIII  in 
that  great  Encyclical  of  which  I  have  spoken. 

In  it  he  reminds  the  employer,  in  words  that 
should  never  be  forgotten,  that  in  the  agreements 
entered  into  by  the  employer  and  his  workman 
"there  is  a  dictate  of  nature  more  imperious  and 
more  ancient  than  any  bargain  between  man  and 
man,  namely,  that  the  remuneration  must  be 
sufficient  to  support  the  wage-earner  in  reasonable 
and  frugal  comfort."  "  If  through  necessity  or  fear 
of  a  worse  evil,"  adds  the  Pontiff,  "the  workman 

D 


34  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTL\XITY 

accepts  harder  conditions  because  an  emploj'er 
or  contractor  will  give  him  no  better,  he  is  made  the 
victim  of  force  and  injustice."  What  can  be 
clearer,  what  fairer,  what  braver  or  nobler  than  a 
proclamation  such  as  that ! 

The  Supreme  Pontiff,  looking  out  from  his 
watch-tower  on  the  Vatican  hill,  sees  the  terribly 
strained  state  of  things  that  has  been  created  be- 
tween Capital  and  Labour  by  the  ^-iolation  of  this 
principle.  Tike  his  Di^-ine  Master,  he  has  compas- 
sion on  the  multitude ;  on  the  tens,  nay,  hmidreds 
of  thousands  of  men  and  women  who  are  grinding 
out  their  Uves  in  sweated  workshops,  who  are 
huddled  together  in  our  great  cities  and  centres 
of  industry-,  who  are  hidden  awaj'  in  the  cellars 
and  attics  of  disease-breeding  slums,  and  who  are 
driven  hy  penury  and  want  to  join  the  ever  grow- 
ing armj^  of  criminals,  or  at  any  rate  of  the  dis- 
contented. His  Pontiff's  heart  is  moved  with  pity 
for  these  enslaved  men  and  women  who  are  our 
brothers  and  sisters  in  Christ,  and  he  declares 
in  the  most  solemn  manner  in  which  he  can  make 
his  voice  heard :  ''That  a  remedy-  must  be  foimd, 
and  found  quickly,  for  the  misery  and  wretched- 
ness which  presses  so  heavily  and  unjustly  upon 
such  vast  multitudes." 

But  where  is  that  remedy  to  be  f  oimd  ?   "VMiere  is 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  PAPACY  35 

the  prescription  that  will  go  to  the  root  of  the  e\'il 
and  cure  these  disorders  that  are  threatening  the 
very  Hfe  of  the  social  organism  ?  I  may  say  that 
I  find  only  two  physicians  in  the  field  —  two,  I 
say — who  claim  to  have  a  radical  cm^e  for  the  dis- 
ease. The  Supreme  Pontiff  is  the  one,  the  SociaHst 
Philosopher  is  the  other. 

The  remedy  pointed  out  by  the  Supreme  Pon- 
tiff I  will  explain  in  a  later  Conference.  I  shall 
only  say  now  that  the  Pope,  unlike  the  Socialist 
Philosopher,  has  lived  in  close  contact  with  hu- 
manity for  nineteen  hundred  years,  and  he  may 
be  credited  with  knowing  something  about  the 
ailment,  character,  and  temperament  of  the  patient. 
He  has  lived  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  the  rich 
man  no  less  than  \\'ith  the  poor,  with  the  children 
of  the  forest  as  well  as  with  the  men  of  great 
cities.  No  class  of  society  is  alien  to  him.  And 
when  class  struggles  have  arisen  and  the  poor  have 
suffered,  and  the  well-being  of  society  has  been 
threatened,  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  has  never  held 
back,  has  never  forgotten  his  duty;  he  has  come 
forw^ard,  he  has  diagnosed  the  malady,  he  has 
prescribed  the  remedy. 

But  too  often  has  his  paternal  voice  been  un- 
heeded. People  have  thought  they  were  wiser 
than  he.     They  wanted  to  be  independent.    They 


36  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

fancied  they  could  find  a  remedy  elsewhere.  They 
said:  ''No,  not  you.  We  will  seek  our  cure  in 
Reformation  and  Revolution.  We  will  seek  a 
readier  cure  for  our  ills ;  we  want  measures  more 
drastic  than  you  prescribe ;  our  sickness  can  yield 
to  no  treatment  of  yours."  Thus  the  second  con- 
dition of  the  patient  has  become  worse  than  the 
first. 

Now,  who  is  the  rival  physician  who  claims 
that  he  had  discovered  the  remedy  that  will  go 
to  the  root  of  the  evil  ?  The  Socialist  is  the  man. 
But  who  is  the  Socialist  ?  In  what  school  has  he 
been  trained  ?  What  is  his  knowledge  of  human 
nature  ?  How  long  has  he  been  with  us  ?  What 
credentials  does  he  bring?  Who  gave  him  a 
diploma  ?     Wliat  has  he  done  for  humanity  ? 

This  man  tells  us  that  the  cure  which  will  right 
all  our  wrongs  is  to  be  fomid  on  the  transference 
to  the  community  of  all  the  instruments  of  the  pro- 
duction and  distribution  of  wealth.  We  are  told 
that  this  is  the  essence  and  sum  total  of  Socialism. 

If  Socialism  were  nothing  more  than  a  mere  eco- 
nomic proposal,  independent  not  only  of  religion  but 
also  of  ethics,  it  would  never  have  been  made  the 
subject  of  a  series  of  Conferences  in  this  Cathedral. 
If  Socialism  were  nothing  more  than  what  it 
is  represented  to  be  in  campaign  books,  and  on 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  PAPACY  37 

political  platforms  at  election  time,  it  might, 
indeed,  be  of  interest  to  the  CathoHc  sociologist, 
but  it  would  not  be  deserving  of  the  attention 
we  are  giving  it  in  this  sacred  edifice.  We  might 
indeed  say  that  it  promised,  without  proof  or 
guarantee,  a  ten*estrial  paradise ;  —  that  it  involved 
a  grievous  injustice  at  the  very  start  in  the  abo- 
lition of  all  private  capital  that  is  productive,  and 
that,  beginning  with  an  act  of  injustice,  it  could 
scarcely  be  rehed  upon  as  the  impartial  dispenser 
of  justice  and  right.  We  might  say  this  and  no 
more.     But  not  so  now. 

Socialism  is  an  affair  of  far  deeper  significance 
than  a  bare  question  of  economics.  It  means 
more  than  the  promise  of  a  far-off  fanciful  Ar- 
cadia. In  the  words  of  a  leading  socialist  writer 
of  this  country,  John  Spargo,  it  is  ''a  philosophy 
of  human  progress,  a  theory  of  social  evolution." 
"Our  theory,"  wrote  Engels,  ''is  not  a  dogma,  but 
the  exposition  of  a  process  of  evolution."  "So- 
cialism," argues  Spargo,  "is  the  product  of  eco- 
nomic conditions,  not  of  a  theory  or  a  book."  The 
Socialism,  he  tells  us,  that  is  alive  in  the  world 
to-day,  and  upon  which  the  great  socialist  parties 
of  the  world  are  based,  is  the  Socialism  of  Marx 
and  Engels. 

The  Socialism,  then,  that  I  have  to  deal  with 

I4  4rjli.-! 


38  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

is  not,  I  say,  the  Socialism  of  the  campaign  book 
or  of  the  poUtical  platform,  but  the  Socialism 
assiduously  spread  among  the  docile  working 
classes,  the  Socialism  poured  on  anxious  listeners 
in  the  Socialist  Assembly  Room,  the  Socialism 
scattered  over  the  country  in  socialist  newspapers 
and  pamphlets,  and  in  well-advertised  editions  of 
what  are  called  socialist  classics.  I  have  little 
or  no  interest  in  Socialism  as  an  abstract  principle 
of  economy,  or  as  a  distant  Cooperative  Common- 
wealth. My  inquiry  is  about  Socialism  as  a  liv- 
ing, moving,  energizing  concern,  with  a  well- 
organized  press  and  a  propaganda  that  is  a  marvel 
of  enterprise,  I  may  say,  of  self-sacrifice.  And 
the  question  I  have  to  ask  is :  Whether,  everything 
considered,  is  it  wiser  and  more  ennobling  for  a 
Christian  people  to  join  in  the  socialist  movement, 
or  in  a  movement  for  the  reestablishment  of 
Christian  principles  in  the  social  and  industrial  life 
of  a  people?  Shall  the  cry  be:  ''On  to  Social- 
ism," with  all  its  bravery  of  statement  and  blind- 
ness to  consequences,  or  ''Back  to  Christianity," 
that  has  already  proved  itself  to  be  the  one  great 
reforming  power  in  the  world  ?  Of  one  fact  we 
may  rest  assured,  that  there  can  be  no  permanent 
solution  of  the  social  and  industrial  problems 
standing  out  before  us,  till  Christian  principles 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  PAPACY  39 

come  once  more  to  be  recognized  and  followed  in 
our  relations  with  one  another.  For  it  is  nothing 
but  the  truth  to  say  with  a  modern  writer  that 
''although  a  Christian  community  might  abandon 
its  faith  it  would  still  find  it  necessary,  if  it  would 
keep  clear  of  anarchy,  to  keep  faithful  to  practical 
Christian  principles.  .  .  .  Ultimately  moral  re- 
lations will  have  no  significance,  certainly  no 
moral  sanction  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
apart  from  the  Christian  principles  wdth  which 
they  are  now,  or  have  been  in  the  past  asso- 
ciated." (Kelleher.)  We  cannot  hve  as  those  who 
have  ever  ''sat  in  darkness,"  and  never  seen  "the 
Great  Light."  We  can  never  accept  the  teaching 
enunciated  by  Hillquit,  who,  speaking  for  Social- 
ists, is  at  pains  to  remind  them  that:  "Good  or 
bad  conduct  has  largely  come  to  mean  conduct 
conducive  to  the  welfare  and  success  of  their  class 
in  its  struggles  for  emancipation."  From  all  such 
so-called  "codes  of  morality"  let  every  true  Ameri- 
can shake  himself  free.  For  they  strike  at  the 
root  not  only  of  Christianity,  but  of  religion,  nay, 
even  of  moraUty  itself. 


II 

SOCIALISM  AND  THE  STATE 

I  AM  sometimes  asked  by  letter,  and  some- 
times by  word  of  mouth,  why  instead  of  saying 
kind  I  say  hard  things  of  SociaHsm.  The  man 
in  the  street  says  to  me :  "If  you  want  to 
champion  the  cause  of  the  bread-winner,  you 
must  do  something  more  than  build  clubs  for 
him,  something  more  than  attempt  to  better  his 
condition;  you  must  even  do  something  more 
than  busy  yourseK  about  his  little  ones — you 
must  identify  yourself  with  his  Socialism.  Show 
the  world  that  between  Cathohcism  and  Socialism 
there  can  and  ought  to  be  a  union  closer  than  that 
of  wedded  life  itself,  and  then  you  will  have  ac- 
complished something." 

These  questions  from  my  wage-earning  friends 
force  me  to  ask:  "Can  the  Cathohc  Church,  the 
Church  par  excellence  of  the  toiHng  classes, — 
have  anything  in  common  with  SociaHsm  as  it  is 
to-day ;  anything  on  which  to  establish  kindly 
relations  with  it  ?  "  It  might  appear  at  first  sight 
that  there  is  much  in  common  between  them. 
Both  protest  against  the  evils  of  modern  capital- 

40 


SOCLiLISM  AND  THE  STATE  41 

ism,  of  fierce  individualism,  of  iniquitous  com- 
petition, and  of  colossal  wealth  in  the  hands  of  the 
few.  Read  the  EncycUcals  of  Leo  XIII  on  the 
great  questions  of  the  day,  and  you  will  imagine, 
at  times,  that  you  are  reading  passages  from  a 
socialist  manifesto.  The  working  classes  are  de- 
scribed as  having  been  ''surrendered,  all  iso- 
lated and  helpless,  to  the  hard-heartedness  of 
employers  and  the  greed  of  unchecked  competi- 
tion." It  is  pointed  out  that  "a.  small  number  of 
very  rich  men  have  been  able  to  lay  upon  the 
teeming  masses  of  the  labouring  poor  a  yoke  little 
better  than  that  of  slavery  itself." 

Or,  read  again  the  social  programmes  issued  by 
the  Catholics  of  Germany,  or  of  France,  or  of 
Belgium,  or  of  England,  and  you  will  find  that 
many  of  the  reforms  there  demanded  are  those 
which  figure  prominently  on  sociahst  programmes. 

But  looking  at  the  matter  more  closely,  we  find 
that  a  wide  gulf  separates  the  Catholic  from  the 
Socialist.  Both  recognize  the  fact,  though  en- 
deavours are  sometimes  made  to  disguise  it. 
Against  Socialism,  as  it  is,  the  Catholic  Church  has 
resolutely  set  her  face.  She  will  have  none  of  it. 
Socialists,  on  the  other  hand,  have  declared  if  the 
ideal  commonwealth  is  to  be  realized,  the  Catholic 
Church  is  in  the  way,  and  must  go.     A  leading  So- 


42  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

cialist  in  America,  once  a  member  of  Congress,  has 
told  his  comrades  that  the  last  and  most  power- 
ful foe  they  will  have  to  meet  will  be  the  Church 
of  Rome.     I  believe  this  to  be  true. 

This  irreconcilable  antagonism  between  CathoHc 
and  SociaHst  we  shall  now  examine.  But  to  do  so 
we  must  go  outside  the  field  of  mere  economics. 
For  observe  well,  as  I  have  said.  Socialism,  in  the 
concrete,  is  not  a  mere  economic  proposal.  It 
involves  a  theory  of  life  and  a  view  of  the  universe 
all  its  own,  from  which  there  is  no  getting  away. 

The  first  and  chief  difference  between  the  Catho- 
lic and  the  Socialist  hes  precisely  in  this,  that  they 
hold  conflicting  views  about  the  nature  of  civil 
society,  and  about  the  origin  and  destiny  of  man. 
This  parting  of  the  ways  leads  on  to  further  prob- 
lems of  disagreement.  The  matter  is  so  impor- 
tant that  it  demands  our  closest  attention. 

My  task  to-day  will  be  to  lay  before  you,  as 
briefly  as  may  be,  the  difference  between  the 
socialistic  and  the  Catholic  conception  of  the 
State. 

Socialism  is  based  upon  the  materialistic  theory  of 
evolution.  This  statement  may  be  repudiated  by 
individuals,  as  also  by  groups  in  the  socialist  body ; 
but  the  history  of  Socialism  proves  my  contention 
true.     The    ''Christian    Socialist"    may   protest, 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   STATE  43 

the  pious  Fabian  may  remonstrate,  the  Idealist 
may  grow  indignant ;  but  for  all  that,  Socialism  as 
a  living,  energizing  concern  is  not  a  mere  economic, 
or  politico-economic,  principle;  it  is  a  growth 
planted  deeply  in  philosophic  and  religious  theo- 
ries. Socialism  was  born  and  nurtured  in  a  phi- 
losophy that  denies  the  existence  of  a  personal  God, 
and  that  repudiates  all  man's  duties  toward  his 
Creator.  Socialism  still  teaches  that  the  one  true 
source  of  our  social,  political,  ethical,  and  religious 
ideas  and  beliefs  is  to  be  found  in  the  economic 
conditions  of  production  and  distribution  of  ma- 
terial goods.  It  undertakes  to  trace  materialistic 
evolution  from  slavery  to  feudalism,  from  feudal- 
ism to  capitalism,  and  from  capitalism,  through 
democracy,  to  Socialism. 

Hillquit  ("  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice  ") 
tells  his  readers  that :  "The  idea  of  social  evolution 
is  admirably  expressed  in  the  fine  phrase  of  Leib- 
nitz, '  The  present  is  the  child  of  the  past,  but  it  is 
the  parent  of  the  future.'  The  great  seventeenth- 
century  philosopher  was  not  the  first  to  postulate 
and  apply  to  society  that  doctrine  of  flux,  of  con- 
tinuity and  unity,  which  we  call  evolution.  In 
all  ages  of  which  record  has  been  preserved  to  us, 
it  has  been  sporadically,  and  more  or  less  vaguely, 
expressed.      Even  savages  seem   to   have   dimly 


44  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

perceived  it.  The  saying  of  the  Bechuana  chief, 
recorded  by  the  missionary,  Casahs,  was  probably, 
judging  by  its  epigrammatic  character,  a  proverb 
of  his  people.  'One  event  is  always  the  son  of 
another,'  he  said  —  a  saying  strikingly  like  that 
of  Leibnitz."     Hillquit  continues:  — 

"  Since  the  work  of  Lyell,  Darwin,  Wallace,  Spen- 
cer, Huxley,  Youmans,  and  their  numerous  fol- 
lowers —  a  brilliant  school  embracing  the  fore- 
most historians  and  sociologists  of  Europe  and 
America  —  the  idea  of  evolution  as  a  universal 
law  has  made  rapid  and  certain  progress.  Every- 
thing changes ;  nothing  is  immutable  or  eternal. 
Whatever  is,  whether  in  geology,  astronomy,  biol- 
ogy, or  sociology,  is  the  result  of  numberless,  in- 
evitable, related  changes.  Only  the  law  of  change 
is  changeless.  The  present  is  a  phase  only  of  a 
great  transition  process  from  what  was,  through 
what  is,  to  what  will  be." 

"The  Marx-Engels  theory  is  an  exploration  of 
the  laws  governing  this  process  of  evolution  in  the 
domain  of  human  relations  :  an  attempt  to  provide 
a  key  to  the  hitherto  mysterious  succession  of 
changes  in  the  political,  juridical,  and  social 
relations  and  institutions  of  mankind."  In  the 
judgment  of  leading  Socialists  the  Cooperative 
Commonwealth  is  a  thing  assured.     You  can  no 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  STATE  45 

more  hope  to  fight  and  crush  it  than  the  Indian 
brave  could  hope,  with  his  bow  and  arrow,  with  his 
tomahawk  and  scalping  knife,  to  fight  and  conquer 
the  present-day  soldier  armed  with  the  weapons 
of  modern  warfare.  ''The  State,"  proclaims  Pro- 
fessor Ward,  "is  a  natural  product,  as  much  as  an 
animal  or  plant,  or  as  man  himself." 

Socialism,  acting  on  its  belief  in  the  materialistic 
conception  of  history,  expects  to  establish  a  State 
without  reference  to  God.  It  has  no  special  use  for 
God.     It  ignores  Him  when  it  does  not  deny  Him. 

The  result  of  this  historical  alliance  between 
Socialism  and  atheism  is  that  even  individual 
Socialists,  who  believe  in  God,  have  assimilated 
certain  views  about  the  nature  and  functions  of  so- 
ciety which  are  ultimately  rooted  in  atheism.  They 
have  broken  with  the  Catholic  tradition.  They 
hold  opinions  about  the  rights  of  public  authority 
which  are,  in  fact,  logical  deductions  from  athe- 
istic principles,  and  which  cannot  be  held  con- 
sistently by  those  who  believe  in  a  personal  God. 

I  will  not  here  deal  with  the  blatantly  anti-reli- 
gious Socialist — with  the  whole  tribe  of  Blatchfords 
and  Baxes  who  make  no  secret  of  their  disbelief 
in  God  and  their  desire  to  destroy  religion.  I  will 
confine  myself  to  the  Socialists  who  maintain  that 
Socialism  has  no  religious  implication  whatever. 


46  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

Whether  they  are  ingenuous  in  so  doing  it  is  not 
my  business  to  inquire.  I  merely  wish  to  show 
that  their  theory  of  society,  imphcit  and  explicit, 
is  directly  contrary  to  the  Christian  theory  of 
society,  and  that  it  leads  to  practical  views  as  to 
the  nature  of  liberty,  the  family,  property,  and  so 
forth,  which  are  distinctly  anti-Christian. 

As  a  sample  of  this  fundamental  error  of  con- 
crete Socialism  we  may  take  Mr.  Ramsay  Mac- 
Donald's  ''Socialism  and  Society,"  a  book  which 
has  gone  through  several  editions. 

We  may  begin  by  quoting  the  author's  assurance 
that  Socialism  is  not  prejudicial  to  Christianity 
or  family  life. 

''Within  the  scope  of  this  communal  organiza- 
tion of  industry  there  will  be  need  for  smaller 
groups,  such  as  trade-unions,  churches,  families. 
Indeed  the  larger  organization  will  greatly  de- 
pend upon  the  smaller  groups  for  its  vitality.  As 
the  communal  organization  becomes  more  efficient, 
the  individual  will  respond  with  more  intelligence 
and  more  character,  and  as  the  individual  thus 
responds,  these  smaller  groups  will  become  more 
important.  Trade-unionism  keeping  the  com- 
munal organization  in  the  closest  touch  with  the 
needs  of  the  workers ;  a  church  attending  with 
enthusiastic  care  to  the  life,  and  not  merely  to  the 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  STATE  47 

dogma,  of  Christianity;  a  family  organization 
built  upon  a  sound  economic  basis  and  serving, 
in  as  pure  a  form  as  humanity  will  allow,  the  spirit- 
ual needs  of  men  and  safeguarding  at  the  same 
time  the  rights  of  the  community,  would  be  pre- 
cious organs  in  the  body  conm.iunal"  (pp.  212- 
213). 

But  what  is  this  ''body  communal  "  in  which  the 
Church  and  the  family  of  the  future  are  to  be  snugly 
accommodated  ?  The  answer  is  unhesitating.  The 
author  sees  that  "a  positive  view  of  the  State  is 
essential  to  Socialism,"  and  tells  us  that  ''Social- 
ism comes  with  a  clear  and  scientific  idea  of  the 
aims  and  method  of  State  activity,  and  can,  there- 
fore, discriminate  between  mistaken  and  proper 
methods  of  State  action"  (p.  150).  In  other 
words,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  Socialism 
involves  a  certain  set  of  principles  about  the  nature 
of  civil  society.  These  principles  are  not  Christian 
principles.     What  are  they? 

"The  communal  hfe  is  as  real  to  him  [the  Social- 
ist] as  the  life  of  an  organism  built  up  of  many 
living  cells"  (p.  151). 

Here  we  have  it !  Our  old  friend,  the  biological 
analogy,  masquerading  as  a  literal  reality.  Again, 
we  read :  — 

"The  being  that  lives,  that  persists,  that  de- 


48  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

velops,  is  Society ;  the  life  upon  which  the  individ- 
ual draws,  that  he  himself  may  have  life,  liberty, 
and  happiness,  is  the  social  life.  The  likeness 
between  Society  and  an  organism  like  the  human 
body  is  complete  in  so  far  as  Society  is  the  total 
life  from  which  the  separate  cells  draw  their 
individual  life.     Man  is  man  only  in  Society." 

"  There  appears  to  be  a  cell  consciousness  dif- 
ferent from  the  consciousness  of  the  organized 
body  with  its  specialized  brain  and  nervous  sys- 
tem; there  is  a  social  consciousness  with  its  sen- 
sory and  motor  system  superimposed  on  the 
individual  consciousness ;  both  together  make  up 
the  individual  consciousness  "  (p.  18). 

''In  fact,  disguise  it  from  ourselves  as  we  may, 
in  our  so-called  'practical'  moments,  every  con- 
ception of  what  morality  is  —  except  neurotic 
and  erotic  whims  like  those  of  Nietzsche,  or  anti- 
quated prescientific  notions  like  those  of  the 
Charity  Organization  Society  —  assumes  that  the 
individual  is  embedded  organically  in  his  social 
medium,  and  that,  therefore,  the  individual  end 
can  be  gained  only  by  promoting  the  social  end ; 
that  the  individual  is  primarily  a  cell  in  the  or- 
ganism of  Society;  that  he  is  not  an  absolute 
being,  but  one  who  develops  best  in  relation  to 
other  beings  and  who  discovers  the  true  meaning 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  STATE  49 

of  his  ego  only  when  he  has  discovered  the  organic 
oneness  of  Society  "  (pp.  32-33). 

''The  chief  difference  between  the  social  or- 
ganism and  the  animal  organism  is,  that  whilst 
the  latter,  in  the  main,  is  subject  to  the  slowly 
acting  forces  expressed  in  the  laws  of  natm-al 
evolution,  the  former  is  much  more  largely  — 
though  not  nearly  so  largely  as  some  people  im- 
agine, and  in  a  less  and  less  degree  as  it  becomes 
matured  (another  organic  characteristic)  —  under 
the  sway  of  the  comparatively  rapidly  moving 
and  acting  human  will.  This  gives  the  former 
an  elasticity  for  change  which  the  other  does  not 
possess.  But  the  type  of  its  organization,  the 
relations  between  its  various  organs  and  the  mode 
of  their  functioning  —  and  it  is  with  these  alone 
that  I  have  to  deal  in  this  book  —  are  biological  " 
(p.  37). 

Here  we  see  one  of  the  root  fallacies  of  Social- 
ism. It  is  held  consistently  by  those  Socialists 
who  are  materialistic  evolutionists ;  and  it  is  held 
more  or  less  unconsciously  by  those  Socialists 
who  undertake  to  find  room  for  "the  Churches" 
in  the  socialist  regime.  The  fallacy  consists  in 
mistaking  a  very  useful  analogy  for  an  identity; 
in  resolving  a  moral  life  into  a  physical  or  physi- 
ological process. 


50  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Hillquit,  to  quote  an  American  Socialist,  assures 

us  that :  — 

"  The  historical  and  uniform  course  of  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  State  and  its  overwhelming  importance 
as  a  factor  in  human  civilization  have  led  the  school 
of  thinkers,  of  which  Auguste  Comte,  Saint-Simon, 
and  Hegel  are  the  typical  representatives,  to  the 
opposite  extreme  —  the  conception  of  the  State 
as  an  organism.  The  'historical'  or  'organic' 
school  sees  in  the  abstract  phenomenon  of  the  State 
a  concrete  and  independent  being  with  a  life, 
interests,  and  natiu-al  history  of  its  own.  To  these 
thinkers  human  society  is  a  social  organism  very 
much  like  the  biological  organism.  The  social 
institutions  are  so  many  of  its  organs  performing 
certain  vital  functions  required  for  the  life  and  well- 
being  of  the  organism  itself,  while  the  individual 
members  of  society  are  but  its  cells.  Mr.  M.  J. 
Novicov,  probably  the  most  ingenious  exponent 
of  the  'organic'  school  of  sociology,  carries  the 
parallelism  between  the  social  organism  and  the 
biological  organism  to  the  point  of  practical  iden- 
tity, and  Mr.  Benjamin  Kidd,  criticising  the  utili- 
tarian motto,  'The  greatest  happiness  of  the 
greatest  number,'  says:  'The  greatest  good  which 
the  evolutionary  forces  operating  in  society  are 
working  out  is  the  good  of  the  social  organism  as 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  STATE  51 

a  whole.  The  greatest  number  in  this  sense  is 
comprised  of  the  members  of  generations  yet  un- 
born or  unthought  of,  to  whose  interests  the  exist- 
ing individuals  are  absolutely  indifferent.  And,  in 
the  process  of  social  evolution  which  the  race  is 
undergoing,  it  is  these  latter  interests  which  are 
always  in  the  ascendant.'  " 

"In  short,"  Hillquit  concludes,  "the  State  is  the 
end,  the  citizen  is  only  the  means." 

The  biological  concept  of  society  by  no  means 
originated  with  Socialists.  It  is  found  in  St. 
Paul ;  it  has  been  used  by  Aristotle,  by  St.  Augus- 
tine, and  by  St.  Thomas.  We  come  upon  it  even 
in  the  Encyclical  on  Labour.  But  observe  a 
Catholic  when  using  the  idea  always  remembers 
that  he  is  dealing,  not  with  a  literal  fact,  but  with 
a  useful  analogy.  To  accept  the  idea  as  more  is 
to  rob  human  life  of  its  value,  to  destroy  liberty, 
and  to  put  an  end,  not  merely  to  revelation,  but  to 
liuman  personality  itself.  At  best  man  becomes 
a  mere  function  of  the  social  organism,  a  muscle 
or  nerve  centre  in  the  body  politic  —  with  no  free 
or  independent  soul  of  his  own. 

The  Catholic,  I  repeat,  in  using  the  comparison 
has  always  realized  that  he  was  dealing  with  an 
analogy,  and  not  with  a  literal  fact.  To  accept 
this  biological  idea  as  an  analogy  is  to  get  a  truer 


52  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

insight  into  the  nature  of  society;  to  accept  it 
as  a  literal  fact  (as  does  Mr.  Ramsay  MacDon- 
ald)  is  sheer  nonsense. 

Society  is  a  moral  organism.  What  do  I  mean 
by  that?  I  mean  that  it  resembles  a  physical 
organism  in  some  important  points,  and  differs 
from  it  in  other  points  no  less  important.  Hence, 
what  is  true  of  a  physical  organism  cannot  be 
straightway  applied  to  the  organism  of  society. 

A  physical  organism  seems  to  be  dowered  with 
autonomous  parts  with  specific  activities,  united 
by  a  superior  directing  principle.  But  this  is  not 
really  so,  since  the  vital  principle  is  the  only 
source  of  life.  The  members  exist  entirely  for 
the  body ;  their  activity  is  ordained  directly  for 
the  common  good.  In  a  moral  organism  there  is 
also  autonomy  of  parts  and  unity.  But  the  au- 
tonomy of  the  parts  is  real  and  not  apparent. 
The  individual  in  society  has  his  own  individual 
end,  directly  given  him  by  God.  He  is  answer- 
able to  God  alone,  not  to  society  except  in  so  far 
as  society  is  delegated  with  God's  authority.  The 
individual  will  be  judged  not  merely  as  a  member 
of  society.  He  is  not  wholly  immersed  in  society. 
Society  exists  as  we  shall  show  in  order  to  protect 
him  and  to  help  him  to  do  certain  things  which  he 
cannot  do  for  himself. 


SOCL\LISM  AND  THE   STATE  53 

To  say,  then,  that  we  are  all  members,  or  limbs, 
or  cells  of  one  organism  is  to  use  an  analogy  sup- 
pUed  by  St.  Paul,  and  is  helpful  so  long  as  we  re- 
member we  are  using  an  analogy.  If  we  go  on 
to  argue  that  we  are  as  wholly  dependent  on 
society  for  our  life  and  destiny  as  the  cell  is  de- 
pendent on  the  organism,  then  we  are  talking 
nonsense. 

Catholics,  in  their  union  with  the  Church  as 
well  as  with  the  State,  reahze  that  they  are  mem- 
bers of  living  organisms.  As  a  Catholic,  I  rec- 
ognize myself  to  be  a  member,  a  cell  if  you  will, 
of  that  mystical  Body  of  which  Christ  is  the  mys- 
tical Head.  As  a  citizen,  no  less  I  realize  that  I 
am  also  a  member  of  another  organized  society 
called  the  State.  But  not  for  a  moment  could  I 
even  imagine  that  in  consequence  of  my  relation- 
ship to  State  and  Church  I  had  lost  my  personal 
identity,  my  personal  liberty,  and,  consequently, 
my  personal  responsibility.  Neither  by  the 
Church  nor  by  the  State  have  I  been  swallowed 
up  and  assimilated.  Were  I  to  shake  myself  free 
altogether  of  the  State,  or  of  the  Church,  or  of 
both,  I  should  not  thereby  cease  to  be.  My  own 
individual  life  might  still  pursue  an  aimless  career ; 
indeed  I  should  be  answerable  to  God  for  having 
cut  myself  off,  by  a  misuse  of  liberty  lent  me,  from 


54  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

two  institutions,  one  of  which  is  necessary  for  the 
development  of  social  life,  while  without  the  other, 
what  could  be  man's  life  spiritual  ? 

By  all  means  let  us  talk  of  ourselves  as  cells 
of  a  living  organism  called  the  State,  but  let  us 
know  what  we  are  talking  about,  and  let  us  keep 
clearly  before  our  minds  the  not  unimportant  fact 
that  we  are  using  the  term  in  a  sense  not  identical 
with,  but  only  analogous  to,  that  in  which  it  is 
used  of  a  human  body  or  of  an  animal.  Man 
does  not  exist  merely  as  a  cell  in  State  organism. 
He  is  not  merely  what  the  eye,  the  hand,  or  the 
foot  is  to  a  human  body.  He  is  complete  in  him- 
self, and  were  he  to  find  himself  alone  on  a  desert 
island,  he  would  still  be,  in  a  very  literal  sense,  a 
self-determining  being,  responsible  after  life  to 
God  for  the  things  done  in  the  body. 

-Now,  this  fundamental  misconception  of  the 
nature  of  the  State  as  a  real,  live  organism,  in 
which  man  is  but  a  cell,  is,  as  I  have  said,  widely 
diffused  among  Socialists.  It  colours  their  practi- 
cal proposals,  and  it  shapes  their  views  of  the  indi- 
vidual, of  the  family,  of  liberty,  and  of  property. 
This  glorification,  this  apotheosis  of  the  State, 
is  not  without  its  entertaining,  its  humorous  side, 
if  it  were  only  profitable  to  dwell  on  this  aspect 
of  the  case.     To  judge  from    sociahst   writings 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE   STATE  55 

one  would  be  almost  led  to  think  that  the  new 
State  was  to  be  some  god  in  disguise,  or  at  least 
the  ideal  superman ;  whereas,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
when  cleansed  of  its  war-paint  and  stripped  of  its 
stage  clothes,  it  might  be  found  to  be  only  a  large 
cooperative  body  of  political  office-holders,  whose 
symbols  of  office  might  be  an  axe  to  grind,  a  purse  to 
fill,  and  whose  motto  might  be  :  "We  are  the  State." 
The  State,  even  as  we  know  it,  is  muddlesome 
and  meddlesome  enough.  Under  Socialism,  into 
what  kind  of  Oriental  Despotism  would  it  be  per- 
verted ?  In  a  House  of  Bondage,  such  as  it  might 
be,  man  would  have  about  as  much  opportunity 
of  realizing  himself  as  a  slave  in  the  open  market. 
He  would  be,  as  we  have  shown,  but  a  cell,  a  nerve 
centre,  a  muscle  in  the  all-absorbing  State  organ- 
ism. He  would  be  free  neither  to  choose  his  oc- 
cupation nor  to  determine  where  to  exercise  it, 
nor  to  employ  labour  on  it.  Would  his  house  in 
any  true  sense  be  his  home  ?  Would  his  children 
belong  to  him  or  to  the  State  ?  Would  he  be  free 
to  provide  for  them,  or  to  exercise  parental  rights 
over  them  ?  Would  he  be  a  self-determining 
citizen,  or,  on  the  contrary,  a  State-crushed  crea- 
ture only,  bound  up  in  red  tape,  labelled  with  a 
"food  ticket,"  and  with  a  State-appointed  occu- 
pation and  a  State-given  destiny  ? 


56  SOCIALISM   AND  CHRISTIANITY 

Again,  what  under  Socialism  would  happen  to 
the  man  who  was  wronged  by  the  State  and  sought 
redress  ?  I  do  not  know  that  he  could  appeal  to 
law,  because  all  the  lawyers  would  be  State  offi- 
cials ;  I  am  not  sure  that  he  could  write  to  the 
press,  because  all  newspapers  would  be  owned  by 
the  State.  The  only  thing  left  him  might  be 
anonymous  letters,  the  resort  of  the  knave,  cow- 
ard, and  fool. 

I  can  picture  nothing  more  deadly  dull  than 
life  as  it  might  be  under  a  socialist  State.  You 
cannot  think  of  it  without  there  rising  up  before 
you  the  vision  of  some  reformatory,  with  inmates 
garbed  in  a  drab  uniform,  and  moving  to  and  fro 
in  dull  monotony. 

In  spite  of  what  many  Socialists  tell  us,  it  is 
very  difficult  to  conceive  of  the  socialist  State 
except  in  terms  bureaucratic. 

Perhaps  Ansley's  picture  of  it  may,  after  all,  be 
quite  as  true  as  Spargo's. 

Certainly  Herbert  Spencer,  whose  philosophy 
so  many  Socialists  adopt,  has  drawn  for  us  from 
socialist  teaching  the  "Coming  Slavery,"  which 
cannot  be  made  to  fit  in  with  descriptions  of  the 
Cooperative  Commonwealth  described  by  writers 
of  the  Hillquit  school  —  Bellamy,  Morris,  Gron- 
lund.      ''The    Sociahst    State,"    WTites    Hillquit 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE    STATE  57 

(''Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice"),  ''is  not  the 
slave-holding  state,  nor  the  feudal  state,  nor  the 
state  of  the  bourgeoisie  —  it  is  a  Socialist  State." 

That  is  about  all  that  can  legitimately  be  said 
about  it,  for  as  yet  the  working  plans  of  this  Elysian 
State  have  not  been  submitted  by  Socialists  for 
our  inspection.  Before  attempting  to  do  so  let 
them  determine  whether  State  and  municipal 
ownership,  on  a  large  scale,  has  succeeded  both 
pohtically  and  economically ;  whether  the  State- 
owned  railways  of  Europe  are  superior  in  every 
respect  to  the  private-owned  railways  of  America. 

As  to  land,  we  are  assured  that  no  socialist 
commonwealth  would  oppose  its  occupation  and 
possession  by  persons  "using  it  in  a  useful  and 
bona  fide  manner  without  exploitation." 

The  small  farmer  would  not  find  his  acres  con- 
fiscated nor  his  occupation  gone  under  a  socialist 
government.  Perhaps  not,  but  conditions  might 
be  laid  down,  the  fulfilment  of  which  would  mean 
that  all  interests  in  his  occupation  would  be  gone. 
What  farmer  is  going  to  live  on  his  land  and  culti- 
vate his  farm,  unless  he  can  employ  labour,  realize 
his  stock,  and  put  by  a  bit  of  money  for  his  old 
age,  and  for  those  to  come  after  him  ?  Alas  ! 
Socialism  betrays,  at  every  step,  a  plentiful  lack 
of  knowledge  of  human  nature. 


58  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Let  Socialists  follow  the  farmers,  with  their 
thousands  of  dollars,  going  forth  yearly  to  take 
up  land  in  the  States  and  in  Canada.  Let  them 
ask  these  enterprising  folk  what  is  their  aim  and 
object  in  so  doing. 

They  will  soon  discover  that  the  farmer  is  not 
to  be  satisfied  with  tilling,  ploughing,  sowing,  and 
reaping  to  secure  a  mere  livelihood.  He  means 
to  put  money  by,  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  his  labour, 
and  to  have  a  bank  account  with  which  to  set 
up  his  sons  and  daughters  in  positions  of  respect- 
ability, comfort,  and  ease.  He  wants  none  of 
your  Socialism.  We  must  not  forget  that  in  treat- 
ing of  the  socialist  State  we  are  dealing  with  a 
condition  of  things  which,  according  to  the  Marx- 
Engels  teaching,  is,  as  Kautsky  observes,  ''not  the 
product  of  an  arbitrary  figment  of  the  brain,  but 
a  necessary  product  of  economic  development." 
The  Cooperative  Commonwealth  will  evolve 
after  the  socialization  of  all  the  means  of  pro- 
duction and  distribution,  when  all  men  will  be 
fellow-workers,  when  all  men  will  be  contented 
with  their  lot,  when  all  men  will  cease  to  be  jealous 
or  ambitious,  when  exploiting  will  have  forever 
ceased,  when  the  gewgaws,  baubles,  and  toys  of 
this  world  will  no  more  enchant  and  ravish  the 
soul   with   happiness.     In   a  word   this   Elysian, 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   STATE  59 

this  Utopian  Industrial  State  will  be  realized 
when  man  shall  have  ceased  to  be  man  with  a  mis- 
sion in  this  world  and  with  a  destiny  in  the  next. 

''It  has  not  yet  come,"  exclaim  the  sanguine 
followers  of  Marx  and  Engels,  "but  come  it  will, 
and  then  the  happiness  of  all  will  be  as  the  happi- 
ness of  each,  —  supreme,  complete,  and  lifelong." 

Having  briefly  sketched  an  outline  of  the 
socialist  State,  which  we  are  assured  is  on  its 
way  to  bring  men  contentment  and  peace,  let  me 
now  put  before  you  the  Catholic  view  of  the  State. 
What  is  the  nature  and  character  of  the  State  ? 
What  are  its  distinctive  functions,  its  rights,  and 
its  duties  ? 

The  word  "  State  "  has  various  meanings,  two  of 
which  are  to  our  purpose  here.  In  the  wider 
sense  of  the  term  a  State  is  simply  a  community 
of  men  organized  for  all  purposes  of  civilized 
social  life.  Minor  organizations  are  set  up  for 
subordinate  or  local  interests  only.  Not  so  the 
State.  A  State  sums  up  all  the  relations  of  the 
various  groups  of  which  it  is  composed  which 
have  to  do  with  temporal  well-being.  I  say  with 
temporal  well-being,  for  the  State  has  no  direct 
concern  with  man's  eternal  interests  and  destiny. 
In  this  wider  sense,  then,  the  word  "State" 
simply  means  not  a  society,  but  society  itself. 


60  SOCIALISM   AXD    CHRISTLIXITY 

But  the  word  "State"  is  also  used  in  a  narrower 
sense,  signifying  civil  authority,  as  when  we  speak 
of  State  interference,  State  monopoly,  obepng  the 
State,  and  so  forth.  I  shall  employ  the  word 
"  State  "  in  the  restricted  sense,  with  occasional  ex- 
cursions only  into  the  wider  meaning  of  the  word. 
Let  me,  first,  set  forth  the  Catholic  view  of  the 
State,  and  then  we  shall  be  in  a  position  to  con- 
sider in  what  points  the  socialist  idea  is  in  conflict 
with  it.  The  Catholic  view  of  the  State,  I  need 
scarcely  remind  you,  is  based  on  belief  in  the  exist- 
ence of  God.  God  the  Infinite,  Eternal,  Almighty, 
All-wise,  and  All-loving  Spirit  has  created  man, 
has  dowered  him  with  intelligence  and  free-will, 
and  set  him  on  this  earth  to  work  out  an  eternal 
destiny.  Man  not  only  belongs  to  God  inalien- 
ably, but  depends  on  God  utterly  for  all  that  he  is 
and  has.  Nothing  belongs  so  utterly  to  man 
as  man  does  to  God.  Man  has  been  sent  here 
for  a  purpose,  and  that  purpose  is  to  carry  out 
God's  will.  This  world  is  his  temporal  place  of 
probation.  It  is  man's  drill-ground  rather  than 
his  plajTOom,  his  school  rather  than  his  home. 
This  Ufe  is  not  an  end  in  itself,  but  a  means  to 
something  better.  It  is  not  the  play,  but  the 
rehearsal;  not  the  terminus,  but  the  journey;  not 
the  landing  stage,  but  the  outward  voyage.     In  this 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE    STATE  61 

life  man  has  to  fit  himself,  with  God's  help,  for  his 
eternal  destiny.  He  must  reach  the  goal  by  the 
exercise  of  his  faculties,  but  more  especially  by  the 
exercise  of  his  self-determining  will.  He  must 
work  out  his  own  salvation.  No  one  else  can  do 
it  for  him.  He  can  appoint  no  deputy.  To  God, 
and  to  no  one  else,  man  must  give  an  account  of 
his  stewardship,  and  at  any  moment  his  Master 
may  ring  him  up. 

To  pass  on.  Man,  the  individual,  no  matter 
whatever  may  be  said  of  his  supernatural  life,  is 
not  self-sufficient  as  regards  his  temporal  welfare. 
He  must  associate  himself  with  others  for  mutual 
help  and  support.  Man  is  a  social  animal,  and 
only  in  society  can  he  live  a  full  and  healthy 
human  life.  Cut  off  from  society,  he  is  stunted 
and  warped.  His  faculties  have  no  opportunity  of 
free  play,  his  being  cannot  expand  nor  his  talents 
unfold.  This  fact  is  so  generally  admitted  that 
I  need  not  press  the  point.  Civil  society,  then, 
has  been  established  by  God  to  supplement  in- 
dividual activity,  effort,  and  enterprise. 

''No  main  tendency,"  it  has  been  once  said,  "of 
human  nature  can  have  its  fulfilment  except  under 
some  social  organization.  If  learning  is  to  flourish 
among  men,  there  must  be  learned  societies ;  if 
religion,    religious    societies."     Hence,    too,    civil 


62  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

society,  or  the  State,  is  needed  for  the  protection 
and  promotion  of  the  temporal  interests  of  its 
compound  integral  parts. 

If  you  ask  me  what  sort  of  civil  authority  does 
God,  the  Founder  of  society,  demand,  I  reply  that 
God  leaves  men  to  determine  that  for  themselves, 
in  accordance  with  their  special  needs  and  cir- 
cumstances. There  is  no  distinctive  blessing  on 
Monarchy  any  more  than  there  is  on  Republican- 
ism. All  that  God  commands  and  nature  enjoins 
is  government ;  that  is,  effective  government, 
suited  to  the  needs  of  the  particular  people  in 
question.  Observe,  there  is  no  divine  right  of 
kings,  but  there  is  a  divine  right  of  a  government. 
This  or  that  form  of  civil  authority  is  the  work  of 
man.  Civil  Authority  itself  is  the  command  of 
God.  It  is  required  by  nature.  It  is  in  every 
legitimate  sense  of  the  word  natural. 

Here  let  me  call  your  attention  to  what  con- 
stitutes the  range  or  field  of  State  action.  I  want 
to  make  it  clear  to  you  what  is  its  ''natural" 
sphere  of  operation,  but  before  answering  this 
question,  I  want  to  remind  you  for  what  pm'pose 
the  State  exists,  what  is  its  final  cause,  why  pre- 
cisely it  has  been  called  into  existence.  Time 
does  not  permit  me  to  pause  and  review  the  ideas 
of  the  old-fashioned  liberal  political  economists 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   STATE  63 

who,  influenced  b}^  Kant,  held  that  the  State  had 
merely  an  external  and  negative  purpose,  that  it 
existed  simply  in  order  to  protect  men's  liberties. 
''Leave  men  alone,"  it  said,  ''keep  other  men 
from  interfering  with  them,  let  each  man  be  free 
to  pursue  his  private  interest,  and  the  result  will 
be  a  grand  social  and  economic  harmony."  This 
view  of  the  State,  propounded  by  Liberalism,  is 
the  very  antithesis  of  that  promulgated  by  Social- 
ism. The  one  unduly  restricts  the  action  of  the 
State,  the  other  unduly  exaggerates  it.  With 
neither  can  the  Church  come  to  terms.  Against 
both  she  utters  her  protest.  Both  she  em- 
phatically condemns. 

Catholic  economists  remind  us  that  the  State 
exists  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  public 
well-being ;  that  is  to  say,  the  State  is  summoned 
into  being  and  is  set  up  to  secure  that  complexus 
of  conditions  which  is  required  in  order  that  all 
the  organic  members  of  society  may,  as  far  as 
possible,  attain  to  that  temporal  happiness  which 
conduces  to  their  ultimate  destiny. 

Briefly,  then,  the  State  has  two  purposes  to 
accomphsh.  It  has  to  protect  man's  rights ;  and 
it  has  to  assist  him  to  do  what  he  cannot  do  for 
himself,  but  what,  at  the  same  time,  he  requires 
to  do  if  he  is  to  lead  a  normal,  happy  life  here  on 


64  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

earth,  preparing  him  for  a  happier  one  still  in 
Heaven.  The  old-fashioned  Liberal  says  that 
the  State  has  nothing  more  to  do  than  to  protect 
man's  legitimate  rights.  The  Socialist  says  there 
is  no  limit  to  what  it  can  and  may  do ;  while  the 
Catholic  says  that  the  twofold  function  of  the 
State  is  to  protect  man,  and  to  assist  him  to  do 
what  he  ought  to  do,  and  yet  what  without  State 
help  he  cannot  do.  As  St.  Thomas,  following 
Aristotle,  well  says,  "Men  form  societies  not  only 
to  live,  but  to  live  well." 

The  State,  then,  has  for  its  mission  to  assist  its 
members  to  realize  themselves  as  civilized  members 
of  society.  The  State  exists  not  for  the  sake  of  par- 
ticular individuals,  not  even  for  particular  classes, 
but  for  the  general  good  of  all.  The  State  sup- 
plements the  efforts  of  the  individual;  it  caters 
for  the  general  good. 

But  here  it  may  be  objected  that  the  State  does 
sometimes  make  special  provisions  for  particular 
classes  or  groups  of  individuals.  It  builds  and 
maintains  hospitals,  wherein  the  sick  have  their 
individual  wants  attended  to,  and  from  which  the 
healthy  are  excluded.  It  boasts  of  its  ''garden 
cities,"  and  its  city  homes  where  the  people  and 
the  poor  find  shelter.  It  supports  lunatic  asylums 
for  which  the  sane  have  no  use.     In  a  word,  the 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   STATE  65 

State,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  does  a  number  of  things 
for  the  benefit  of  particular  classes.  All  this  is 
true,  and  if  we  keep  carefully  in  our  minds  the 
distinction  to  be  made  between  absolute  public 
goods  and  relative  public  goods,  we  shall  discover 
that  the  State  is  fulfilling  the  function  for  which 
it  was  called  into  being.  We  must  bear  in  mind 
that  the  State  acts  in  order  to  secure  public  wel- 
fare, either  absolutely  or  relatively.  It  has  no 
direct  mission  to  make  each  individual  or  any 
particular  family  rich,  happy,  and  prosperous ;  but 
it  helps  w^here  a  man  cannot  help  himself,  pro- 
vided that  by  so  helping  the  individual  it  at  the 
same  time  furthers  the  common  interest  and  tem- 
poral prosperity  of  the  whole  community. 

The  State  protects.  About  this  all  are  agreed, 
with  the  exception  of  anarchists.  Observe  how 
transcendental  this  function  of  the  State  is.  The 
State  may  rightly  do  things  which  no  individual 
can  rightly  do.  It  may  say  of  parents  who  are 
grossly  neglecting  their  children:  "I  will  take 
these  children  away  from  these  particular  parents, 
for  if  I  do  not,  the  rights  of  children  to  life,  liberty, 
and  a  decent  livelihood  will  be  altogether  violated." 
Similarly,  the  State  may  interfere  in  private  work- 
shops, where  the  toilers'  lives  are  in  danger  by 
insanitary  conditions ;  where  they  are  crippled  by 


66  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

iniquitous  hours,  or  stunted  by  a  sweated  wage. 
Again,  the  State  is  obviously  called  upon  to  settle 
disputes,  to  repress  vice,  to  take  measures  to  pre- 
vent the  commission  of  crimes,  and  to  protect  the 
rights  of  its  citizens. 

But  what  about  the  duty  of  the  State  to  assist 
its  citizens  ?  As  I  have  already  pointed  out,  the 
State  must  help  them  to  do  what  they  ought  to 
do,  but  what  unaided  they  cannot  do.  To  borrow 
the  language  of  M.  Baudrillart,  its  business  is 
not  "faire  nor  laissez  faire,"  but  "aider  a  fair e.'^ 

The  State  exists  in  order  to  secure  both  ''nega- 
tively" (by  protecting  liberties)  and  "positively" 
(that  is,  by  giving  assistance)  the  general  tem- 
poral well-being,  and  this  both  absolutely  and 
relatively. 

With  regard  to  economic  matters  the  civil 
authority  must  facilitate  the  production  of  wealth, 
and  avoid  obstacles  to  such  production,  for  ex- 
ample, excessive  taxation.  It  must  stimulate  pro- 
duction. It  must  encourage  domestic  sanitation, 
hygienic  training,  technical  education,  and  so  forth. 
It  is  not  the  function  of  the  State  to  distribute 
wealth  itself,  for  such  wealth  it  has  not  directly 
produced.  But  it  may  by  wise  legislation  see 
that  the  distribution  of  wealth  is  conducted  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  equity  and  justice.     Nega- 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE    STATE  67 

lively  it  is  called  upon  to  repress  crime  against  re- 
ligion and  morality  and  to  punish  public  scandals, 
while  positively  it  must  support  and  protect  what 
tends  to  estabUsh,  develop,  and  fortify  morals  and 
the  public  exercise  of  religion. 

Observe,  however,  that  the  State  is  not  con- 
cerned directly  with  the  morals  and  religion  of 
individuals.  The  State  is  not  a  rehgious  teacher, 
or  a  guide  in  theology,  or  a  direct  means  to  super- 
natural well-being.  That  belongs  to  the  province 
of  the  Church.  Our  law  courts  are  set  up,  not  to 
try  sins,  but  crimes. 

Some  one  may  ask  me,  What  are  the  absolute 
limits  to  State  authority  ?  To  this  I  answer,  the 
State  has  no  right  to  interfere  du-ectly,  save  when 
its  action  is  necessary  to  the  general  welfare.  It 
may  not  touch  private  rights.  It  may  not  inter- 
fere with  private  activities,  save  when  the  public 
well-being  requires  it.  In  other  words,  it  can  only 
touch  men  in  so  far  as  they  are  citizens  or  mem- 
bers of  the  State.  And  let  us  never  forget  that 
besides  being  a  member  of  the  State,  man  is  also 
a  moral  being,  with  inahenable  personal  rights 
and  an  eternal  destiny.  It  falls  within  the  prov- 
ince of  the  State  to  stop  the  individual  from  sell- 
ing, say,  improper  pictures  or  scrofulous  literature. 
It  may  punish  him  for  purveying  fraudulent  food- 


68  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

stuffs.  A  thousand  other  things  demanded  by 
the  public  well-being  falls  within  the  province 
of  the  State.  The  State  is  set  up  by  man,  not 
man  by  the  State. 

It  were  needless  for  me  to  remind  you  that 
there  are  some  things  the  State  may  never  presume 
to  do.  It  must  not  enact  laws  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  our  Creator.  It  may  not  interfere  with 
religious  freedom,  or  with  parental  rights,  unless 
it  be  to  protect,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  the 
essential  rights  of  children.  I  might  continue, 
but  I  have  said  enough  to  make  it  clear,  that  there 
is  no  taint  of  Socialism  about  the  principles  which 
I  have  laid  down.  According  to  the  Catholic 
view,  the  intervention  of  the  State  in  the  play  of 
social  activities  is  never  justified  by  mere  utility, 
but  by  moral  necessity  only.  The  State,  for  in- 
stance, has  no  right  to  say,  ''I  will  assume  the  direct 
control  of  all  mines,  for  then  the  miners  will  be 
better  off;"  but  it  has  a  distinct  right  to  say,  "I 
will  assume  the  control  of  industries  which  are 
sweated,  for  in  no  other  way  can  I  secure  the  rights 
of  the  sweated  worker;"  in  other  words.  State 
interference  is  justified  only  when  private  initiative 
becomes  insufficient.  The  State  must  look  to  the 
well-being  of  the  whole  social  organism. 

Again,  let  me  insist  that  if  we  keep  in  mind  the 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE   STATE  69 

fact  that  the  State  exists  chiefly  to  supplement 
private  initiative,  then  the  scope  of  State  inter- 
ference, instead  of  widening  and  deepening,  should 
on  the  contrar}^  automatically  diminish  in  pro- 
portion to  individual  and  class  initiative  and 
enterprise.  Why  this?  Because,  thanks  to  the 
wise  supplementing  of  initiative  by  the  State,  in- 
dividuals will  become  more  and  more  capable  of 
looking  after  themselves  and  their  own  interests. 
According  to  the  Catholic  view,  the  State  is  like 
the  parent  who  teaches  her  growing  child  to  walk, 
while  on  the  contrary,  according  to  the  socialist 
view,  the  State  is  like  the  foolish  mother  who  keeps 
her  growing  child  in  a  baby  carriage,  giving  it  a 
bottle  to  keep  it  quiet. 

Such,  in  brief,  is  the  State  as  viewed  from  a 
Catholic  standpoint.  There  are  two  extremes  to 
be  avoided  —  a  foolish  distrust  of  State  authority, 
calculated  to  prejudice  the  common  welfare,  and 
an  exaggerated  confidence  in  State  action,  which 
would  stunt  private  initiative,  check  enterprise, 
undermine  liberty,  and  suppress  character. 

In  conclusion  let  me  ask  you  never  to  forget  that 
the  State,  as  we  understand  it,  is  not  the  "  output 
of  mere  economic  conditions,"  it  is  not  "  the 
dynamic  expression  of  material  evolution,"  but  on 
the  contrary  it  is  a  God -given  Institution  resting 


70  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

on  private  property  for  its  material  foundation,  rest- 
ing on  the  family  for  its  natural  foundation,  and 
resting  on  religion  for  its  spiritual  foundation. 

Let  no  man,  let  no  body  of  men,  dare  to  attempt , 
to  undermine  these  sacred  foundations  without 
which  no  State  could  long  endiu-e  the  ravages  of_ 
time,  the  passions  of  men,  the  shocks  of  war.  Re- 
member ever  that  the  State's  first  and  most  im- 
portant duty  is  that  of  not  meddling,  not  obstruct- 
ing, not  taking  over  to  itself  ''all  income-producing 
property,"  not  hampering  the  rights,  activities, 
labour,  and  genius  of  its  citizens.'  It  should  remem- 
ber that  it  is  set  up  for  no  other  purpose  but  to 
protect  and  to  promote  the  well-being  of  the  whole 
community ;  to  supply  its  deficiencies,  and  to  assist 
its  many  weaknesses.  The  State  exists  for  man, 
and  not  man  for  the  State.  It  is  the  man  and 
not  the  State  that  matters ;  it  is  the  man  and  not 
the  State  that  is  endowed  with  a  human  soul ;  it  is 
the  man  and  not  the  State  that  is  called  to  an 
eternal  destiny.  The  State  must  never  forget 
that  prior  to  it,  both  in  nature  and  in  time,  is 
man  and  the  family  too,  to  safeguard  whose  in- 
terests and  to  promote  whose  welfare  it  has  been 
called  into  existence.  That  is  its  destiny.  It  will 
take  the  State  all  its  time  to  discharge  its  own 
mission,  to  fulfil  its  own  functions,  to  do  its  own 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE    STATE  71 

work,  keeping  ever  steadily  before  it  this  never- 
to-be-forgotten  truth,  that  the  individual  does  not 
exist  for  the  State,  but  the  State  for  the  individual. 
These  are  principles  brought  out  most  forcibly  and 
developed  most  beautifully  in  the  great  Encyclicals 
of  Leo  XIII,  to  which  I  have  so  often  referred. 

There  are  two  volumes  which  I  should  like  to 
see  in  the  hands  of  every  Catholic  American  citi- 
zen —  in  one  hand  those  Great  Encyclicals,  in 
the  other  the  Great  Constitutions  of  his  country. 
With  these  two  works  to  guide,  uplift,  and  inspire 
him  he  would  become  a  power  in  this  New  World 
for  the  propagation  of  those  principles  of  truth 
and  liberty,  before  which  Socialism,  with  its  all- 
absorbing  State,  would  vanish  as  Darkness  before 
Light. 


Ill 

SOCIALISM  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL 

All  noble  and  lofty  human  action  presupposes 
the  influence  of  some  high  ideal,  for  no  healthy 
human  life  can  long  endure  unless  sustained  by 
some  such  uplifting  force.  Hence  it  comes  that 
men  who  have  fulfilled  great  missions  in  this 
world  have  done  so  under  the  guidance  and  stim- 
ulus of  an  ideal.  Take  Washington,  or  Napo- 
leon, or  Gordon,  or  Cecil  Rhodes ;  they  were  men 
of  action,  inspired  and  actuated  each  by  his  own 
overmastering  ideal.  People  who  begin  by  losing 
their  ideal  end  by  losing  their  work.  That  man 
cannot  live  by  bread  alone  is  true  now  as  always, 
and  hence  it  is  truly  said  that  'Hhe  policy  that 
has  no  ideal  will  never  vitalize  a  people." 

Your  reading  of  history  will  bear  out  what  I 
have  said,  and  you  will  indorse  the  words  of  a 
modern  writer  who  reminds  us  that:  "The  only 
test  of  progress  which  is  to  be  anything  more 
than  a  mere  animal  rejoicing  over  mere  animal 
pleasure  is  the  development  and  spread  of  some 
spiritual  ideal,  which  will  raise  into  an  atmos- 

72 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE    INDIVIDUAL  73 

phere  of  effort  and  distinction  the  life  of  ordinary 
man."  (''The  Heart  of  the  Empire,"  C.  F.  G. 
Masterman,  p.  30.) 

Even  a  man  of  light  and  leading  among  So- 
cialists, Keir  Hardie,  is  forced  to  confess  that:  "A 
labour  party  without  an  ideal  cannot  last.  There 
must  be  a  Holy  Grail,"  he  says,  ''which  they  are 
ever  in  search  of,  which  they  are  making  sacrifice 
to  reach,  and  which  will  inspire  and  enable  men 
and  women  to  do  mighty  deeds  for  the  advance- 
ment of  their  cause."  (Speech  at  Belfast,  vide 
Hunter,  I.e.,  p.  127.) 

Mr.  Keir  Hardie,  of  course,  looks  to  Socialism 
to  supply  such  an  ideal.  Of  its  powerlessness  to 
do  so  I  shall  have  something  to  say  presently. 
What  I  wish  to  note  here  is  that  he  too  admits  the 
need  of  a  high  ideal,  and  as  so  often  happens,  even 
with  anti-Christians,  he  borrows  his  metaphor  from 
mediaival  Christianity.  It  is,  indeed,  a  storehouse 
rich  in  ideals. 

"The  imperious  need  of  to-day,"  says  a  writer 
in  The  Times,  "is  ideals.  At  no  time  has  there 
been  a  greater  need  for  ethical  and  spiritual  ideals 
than  now,  when  on  all  sides  the  material  things 
of  life  are  apt  to  assume  undue  prominence." 

All  then  agree  that  man  must  have  an  ideal. 
The  purpose  of  this  Conference  is  to  show  that 


74  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Christianity  does,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  offer  the  one 
satisfactory  ideal,  by  the  acceptance  of  which 
alone  modern  Democracy  can  hope  to  develop 
along  sound  and  healthy  lines.  Socialism  — 
despite  its  Utopias,  its  rhetoric,  and  its  appeal 
to  the  imagination  —  does  not  supply  such  an 
ideal.  In  Christianity  lies  the  hope  of  Democracy. 
In  Socialism  lies  its  peril,  its  ruin. 

For  Democracy  has  now  to  make  its  choice. 
Will  it  have  living  Christianity,  or  will  it  have 
living  Socialism  ?  It  cannot  have  both :  the 
two  ideas  are  mutually  exclusive.  And  one  or 
other  it  must  take,  if  it  is  to  have  any  kind  of  a 
complete  ideal,  any  theory  of  life.  Of  course  it 
may  have  partial  and  departmental  ideals  of  vari- 
ous kinds,  such  as  the  ideal  of  Imperialism,  or  the 
ideal  of  Municipal  Efficiency,  or  Physical  Culture, 
or  Popular  Art.  But  these  things  do  not  fill  the 
whole  canvas  of  life,  or  group  together  all  man's 
aspirations  into  a  single  dominating  aim.  They 
cannot  enter  into  every  department  of  man's  life, 
or  illuminate  every  phase  of  human  activity,  or 
inspire  the  whole  man  with  enthusiasm.  We  are 
driven  by  an  instinct  of  our  nature  to  seek  for  an 
all-embracing  formula,  and  this,  so  it  would  seem 
at  the  present  day,  must  be  either  Socialism  or 
Christianity.     There  is  no  third  competitor  that 


SOCIALISM   AND. THE   INDIVIDUAL  75 

I  can  point  to  at  present  in  the  field.  We  cannot 
fall  back  on  pure  individualism.  Man  is  a  social 
being  and  cannot  find  his  happiness  in  isolation, 
in  a  cold-air  compartment,  apart  from  the  happi- 
ness of  others.  He  must  have  an  inspiring  object 
of  devotion.  He  must  contribute  to  the  happiness 
of  others.  The  old  individualistic  philosophy  is 
gone,  gone  forever  as  a  discredited  system.  So  far 
as  Socialism  has  recognized  this  reassuring  truth. 
Socialism  deserves  our  warmest  approbation  and 
thanks.  "In  so  far  as  Socialism  is  a  protest 
against  extreme  individualism,"  writes  Father 
Cathrein,  S.J.,  ''Socialism  is  perfectly  right." 
("  SociaUsm,"  p.  305.) 

But  Sociahsm,  like  the  lady  in  "Hamlet,"  "pro- 
tests too  much,"  or  rather  its  protests  have  led  it  to 
an  exaggeration  which  is  almost  as  harmful  as  the 
exaggerated  individualism  which  it  attacked  and 
defeated  so  thoroughly.  For  its  tendency  is  now 
to  lose  sight  of  the  claims  of  the  individual  al- 
together, to  subordinate  the  individual  to  a  Levia- 
than State,  to  change  him  into  a  bolt,  or  cog,  or 
crank  in  its  machinery.  And  not  only  does  it  over- 
look the  individual,  but  it  overlooks  the  present. 
This  is  a  matter  of  great  importance,  and  later 
I  must  be  allowed  to  consider  it  at  some  length. 
Socialism  in  its  reaction  against  a  false  individual- 


76  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

ism  has  rejected  that  true  individuahsm  which  is 
the  necessary  basis  of  a  sound  Democracy. 

Something  has  been  said  already  about  the 
sociahstic  idea  of  the  State.  We  have  seen  that 
to  the  Sociahst  the  State  (or,  if  you  prefer  it,  the 
Community)  is  everything,  while  the  individual 
is  very  little  indeed.  The  Sociahst  tells  me  that  I 
am  a  mere  cell  in  an  organism,  and  that  my  indi- 
viduality is  valuable  only  in  so  far  as  it  contributes 
to  the  welfare  of  the  social  organism.  I  have  al- 
ready pointed  out  that  this  view,  based  as  it  is  upon 
a  misunderstood  analogy,  robs  human  life  of  its 
value,  and  deprives  man  both  of  his  sense  of  per- 
sonal dignity,  of  his  independence  of  character,  and 
of  all  incentive  to  self-improvement  and  self- 
development. 

We  are  living  in  a  day  when  we  must  be  on  our 
guard  against  forgetting  or  ignoring  the  claims  of 
the  individual,  or  to  put  it  in  the  language  of 
Christianity,  against  forgetting  man's  immortal 
soul.  There  is  a  natural  tendency  to  submerge 
the  individual  in  the  social  organism,  and  to  lose 
sight  of  his  paramount  rights,  because  of  the  seem- 
ingly larger  claims  of  the  community.  Cardinal 
Newman,  in  a  sermon  on  the  Individuality  of  the 
Soul,  has  a  passage  which  it  will  not  be  out  of  place 
to  quote  here.     It  luminously  brings  out  what  I 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   INDIVIDUAL  77 

want  so  much  to  insist  on,  that  the  individual  must, 
in  the  present  scheme  of  things,  be  given  his  right 
place  —  man  is  a  distinct  and  separate  existence, 
not  a  screw  only  in  complex  State  machinery. 

''Nothing  is  more  difficult,"  writes  Newman, 
"  than  to  realize  that  every  man  has  a  distinct  soul, 
that  every  one  of  all  the  millions  who  live  or  have 
lived  is  as  whole  and  independent  a  being  in  himself 
as  if  there  were  no  one  else  in  the  whole  world  but 
he.  To  explain  what  I  mean  :  Do  you  think  that  a 
commander  of  an  army  realizes  it,  when  he  sends 
a  body  of  men  on  some  dangerous  service  ?  I  am 
not  speaking  as  if  he  was  wrong  in  so  sending  them ; 
I  only  ask  in  matter  of  fact.  Does  he,  think  you, 
commonly  understand  that  each  of  those  poor  men 
has  a  soul,  a  soul  as  dear  to  himself,  as  precious  in 
its  value  as  his  own  ?  or.  Does  he  not  rather  look 
on  the  body  of  men  collectively,  as  one  mass,  as 
parts  of  a  whole,  as  but  the  wheels  or  springs  of 
some  great  machine,  to  which  he  assigns  the  indi- 
viduality, not  to  each  soul  that  goes  to  make  it 
up?" 

"This  instance,"  continues  the  writer,  "will  show 
what  I  mean,  and  how  open  we  all  lie  to  the  remark, 
that  we  do  not  understand  the  doctrine  of  the 
distinct  individuality  of  the  human  soul.  We 
class  men  in    masses,  as  we  might  connect  the 


78  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

stones  of  a  building.  Consider  our  common  way 
of  regarding  history,  politics,  commerce,  and  the 
like,  and  you  will  own  that  I  speak  truly.  We  gen- 
eralize, and  lay  down  laws,  and  then  contemplate 
these  creations  of  our  own  minds,  and  act  upon  and 
towards  them  as  if  they  were  the  real  things, 
dropping  what  are  more  truly  such.  Take  another 
instance :  when  we  talk  of  national  greatness, 
what  does  it  mean  ?  Why,  it  really  means  that  a 
certain  distinct,  definite  number  of  immortal, 
individual  beings  happen  for  a  few  years  to  be  in 
circumstances  to  act  together,  and  one  upon  an- 
other, in  such  a  way  as  to  be  able  to  act  upon  the 
world  at  large ;  as  to  gain  an  ascendency  over  the 
world,  to  gain  power  and  wealth,  and  to  look  like 
one ;  as  to  be  talked  of  and  to  be  looked  up  to  as 
one.  They  seem  for  a  short  time  to  be  some  one 
thing ;  and  we,  from  our  habit  of  living  by  sight, 
regard  them  as  one,  and  drop  the  notion  of  their 
being  anything  else.  And  when  this  one  dies  and 
that  one  dies,  we  forget  that  it  is  the  passage  of  sep- 
arate immortal  beings  into  an  unseen  state,  that 
the  whole  which  appears  is  but  appearance,  and 
that  the  component  parts  are  the  realities.  No, 
we  think  nothing  of  this :  but  though  fresh  and 
fresh  men  die,  and  fresh  and  fresh  men  are  born, 
so  that  the  whole  is  ever  shifting,  yet  we  forget  all 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE    INDIVIDUAL  79 

that  drop. away,  and  are  insensible  to  all  that  are 
added;  and  we  still  think  that  this  whole,  which 
we  call  the  nation,  is  one  and  the  same,  and  that 
the  individuals  who  come  and  go  exist  only  in  it 
and  for  it,  and  are  but  as  the  grains  of  a  heap  or 
the  leaves  of  a  tree." 

If  we  are  to  avoid  the  Scylla  and  Charybdis  of 
extreme  Individualism  on  the  one  hand  and  of 
extreme  Collectivism  on  the  other,  it  is  imperative 
for  us  not  to  forget  the  personal  equation,  the  in- 
dividuality, the  personality  of  a  human  soul.  Its 
distinctness,  apartness,  wholeness  in  itself  — 
Man  is  man  because  of  his  soul,  not  of  his  citizen- 
ship. 

But  my  complaint  is  not  merely  that  Socialism 
would  subordinate  man  to  the  State,  but  that  it 
would  subordinate  him  to  some  future  State  with 
a  very  problematical  existence,  of  a  very  doubtful 
character,  and  which  might  prove  to  be  the  most 
cruel  tyrant  that  ever  ground  an  individual  into 
the  dust.  Clearly  it  might  be  so.  Socialism  seems 
to  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  true  individual- 
ism is  a  necessary  basis  of  sound  Democracy.  It 
proposes  to  subject  man  to  a  State,  the  product  of 
socialist  fancy,  forgetting  to  recognize  man's  own 
individuality,  personality,  and  worth. 

"Why  care  about  your  own  career?"  it  says 


80  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

to  the  individual.  ''Your  career  is  to  provide  a 
career  for  those  yet  to  come.  Your  reward  must 
be  to  labour  for  generations  not  yet  born."  ''  No 
one,"  says  Bebel,  ''has  a  right  to  consider  whether 
he  himself,  after  all  his  trouble  and  labour,  will 
live  to  see  a  fairer  epoch  of  Socialism.  Still  less 
has  he  a  right  to  let  such  a  consideration  deter 
him  from  the  course  on  which  he  has  entered." 
("  Woman,"  Eng.  Trans.,  p.  264.) 

All  such  idealism  as  this  implies  a  pitiful  dis- 
regard for  the  constituent  elements  of  human 
nature,  and  goes  to  show  that  Socialists,  who  make 
a  problematical  future  State  man's  ideal  in  life, 
have  either  smuggled  religious  sanctions  into  their 
programmes,  or  else  are  insulting  the  intelligence 
of  their  audience. 

For  a  moment  note  the  inconsistency  of  the 
socialist  position.  He  rails  at  Christianity  for 
"dealing  in  futures,"  and  deluding  the  people 
with  a  "draft  on  Eternity,"  yet  he  himself  specu- 
lates in  futures  of  a  far  less  assured  character 
than  the  heaven  which  even  a  shoeless  child,  sell- 
ing the  evening  paper  in  a  slum,  knows  to  be  the 
term  of  his  earthly  pilgrimage. 

Socialism  insists  that  the  ideal  which  it  lifts 
up  to  its  followers  is  both  scientific  and  valuable. 
I  maintain  that  it  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE    INDIVIDUAL  81 

I  have  already  pointed  out  how  unreasonable 
and  misleading  is  the  Socialists'  application  of 
biological  analogies  to  human  society.  Such  anal- 
ogies have  their  uses,  but  when  unduly  pressed, 
they  turn  to  absurdities.  They  rob  man  of  his 
identity,  of  his  personal  equation,  of  his  rightful 
status  among  his  fellows,  converting  him  into  a 
chattel,  a  wheel,  nay,  into  a  mere  cog  in  State 
machinery.  Nor  is  the  ideal  which  it  advocates 
valuable.  We  must  never  forget  that  man  is  an 
end  in  himself,  that  he  must  not  be  made  a  mere 
means  to  the  welfare  of  others.  It  cannot  but 
be  pernicious  to  lift  up  before  him  false  and  debas- 
ing ideals. 

No  human  ideal  can  be  valuable,  can  stimulate 
to  action,  can  call  forth  a  man's  best  energies, 
which  denies  or  ignores  the  worth  of  the  individual 
man.  Democracy,  after  many  years  of  struggle 
and  protest,  has  banished  that  pagan  principle 
summed  up  in  the  words  of  the  poet  Lucan,  Hu- 
manum  paucis  vivit  genus,  —  the  human  race  ex- 
ists but  for  the  few.  Christianity  has  taught 
Democracy  the  wickedness  of  such  a  maxim,  and 
has  helped  them  to  toss  it  aside.  "No,"  says  the 
Church,  "each  individual  here  and  now  as  well  as 
hereafter  has  his  value  and  must  be  considered. 
He  has  his  personal  work  and  must  have  his  per- 


82  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

sonal  reward  for  its  accomplishment.  He  is  an 
end  in  himself  and  must  never  be  made  a  mere 
means  to  the  welfare  of  others." 

Socialism  takes  Lucan's  maxim  and  repeats  it  in 
a  no  less  objectionable  form.  "  Humanum  futuris 
vivit  genus," —  the  hmnan  race  lives  for  a  problem- 
atical future.  This  is  a  denial  of  the  worth  of  the 
individual  here  and  now,  which  is  even  more  sweep- 
ing than  were  the  principles  of  the  Roman  slave- 
owner. He  at  least  held  that  there  were  some  men 
on  earth,  however  few,  who  were  to  be  regarded 
as  ends  in  themselves.  Somebody,  at  all  events,  he 
thought,  was  getting  the  advantage  of  human  so- 
ciety. If  the  many  were  having  a  bad  time,  the 
few,  at  any  rate,  were  enjoying  themselves ;  if  some 
were  being  crushed  beneath  the  chariot  wheels  of 
tyranny  and  pleasure,  others  were  being  borne 
forward  to  goals  of  highest  human  ambition.  But 
present-day  Socialists,  on  the  contrary,  must  be 
content  with  the  "wait  and  see"  policy  of  which 
we  have  lately  heard  so  much. 

The  ideal  offered  us  by  Socialism  is  the  Common- 
wealth State  with  the  voice  of  its  comrades  for  the 
law  of  its  life.  The  ideal  offered  us  by  Chris- 
tianity is  a  life  penetrated  and  permeated  with  the 
spirit  and  the  principles  of  Christ. 

And  I  say  that  my  first  quarrel  with  Socialism 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE    INDIVIDUAL  83 

is  that  it  makes  too  little  of  the  individual  and  too 
much  of  the  State.  It  is  a  sort  of  deification  of  the 
State.  For  the  Socialist  the  State  is  practically 
everything,  while  the  individual  is  practically 
nothing  at  all.  I  notice  that  Socialists  are  told 
by  one  of  their  foremost  representatives  that  the 
State  is  as  essential  to  the  individual  life  as  the 
atmosphere,  without  which  man  cannot  live. 

''The  being,"  they  are  told,  ''that  lives,  that 
persists,  that  develops,  is  society.  The  hfe  upon 
wliich  the  individual  draws  that  he  himself  may 
have  life,  liberty,  and  happiness  is  the  Social 
State." 

What  we  are  to  think  of  this  analogy  so  elab- 
orately drawn  out,  I  have  already  said  in  my  last 
Conference.  We  have  to  put  it  down,  taken  liter- 
allv,  as  sentimental  nonsense.  It  is  sheer  nonsense 
to  speak  of  the  State  as  if  dowered  by  a  vital  prin- 
ciple such  as  exists  in  a  human  body.  The  State 
has  been  called  into  being  and  set  up,  not  to  ap- 
propriate but  to  protect,  not  to  absorb  but  to 
assist  the  rights  of  man.  The  State  is  not  a  per- 
son, in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  it  is  a  thing 
only,  an  institution,  with  its  limitations. 

But  what,  let  me  ask  you,  must  be  the  upshot 
of  putting  before  Democracy  an  ideal  which  offers 
no  immediate  satisfaction  to  man's  needs,  but  only 


84  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

the  hope  of  a  vague,  problematical  future  ?  The 
upshot  is  bound  to  be  this  —  a  policy  of  grab. 
Human  nature  has  no  patience  to  wait  for  joys 
to  be  realized  in  some  future  State  about  which 
there  is  no  certainty.  It  demands  a  present 
instalment  of  justice  ;  it  will  have  it  at  any  price, 
even  at  the  price  of  bloodshed  and  a  Reign  of 
Terror.  If  our  people  are  taught  that  it  is  right 
to  deprive  private  owners  of  their  capital,  they  will 
press  for  immediate  confiscation.  They  will  them- 
selves take  the  short  cut  to  justice  ;  it  is  even  now 
becoming  hard  to  hold  some  of  them  back.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  can  we  blame  them  ?  If  their 
hope  lies  in  a  socialistic  kingdom,  if  their  paradise 
is  to  be  found  somewhere  here  on  earth,  the  sooner 
that  kingdom  is  realized,  the  better  for  them,  and 
the  sooner  they  pass  into  it,  the  sooner  will  they 
attain  the  real  human  happiness  which  is  their  end 
of  life. 

In  Alaska,  where  Socialism  seems  to  thrive  among 
the  miners,  very  recently  I  met  a  miner  return- 
ing home  from  his  shift.  He  had  been  known 
to  me  in  the  north  of  England,  and  at  that  time 
he  was  a  practical  and  devout  Catholic.  Mean- 
while he  had  been  got  at  and  had  enlisted  under  the 
red  flag.  In  course  of  our  conversation  this  com- 
rade told  me  he  had  no  further  use  for  religion  of 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE    INDIVIDUAL  85 

any  kind ;  that  Socialism  was  his  cult.  He  had 
made  the  discovery  that  until  all  the  instruments  of 
production  and  distribution  were  socialized  there 
could  be  no  hope  of  heaven,  but  hell  only.  He 
assured  me  that  most  of  his  mates  were  of  his  mind, 
and  were  determined  to  convert  the  hell  made  by 
capitaUsts  into  a  socialist  heaven.  There  was 
none  other.  In  it  no  class  distinction  would  be 
found,  and  there  would  be  one  sin  only,  rebellion 
against  the  sovereign  will  of  the  people.  He  was 
fed  up  on  the  grossest  of  materialism.  His  hope 
was  the  socialist  State.  —  It  was  his  ideal,  his 
worship,  his  religion. 

Now  for  a  moment  let  me  point  out  to  you  how 
very  different  from  the  socialist  ideal  is  the  ideal 
of  Catholicity.  She  offers  to  the  individual,  no 
matter  what  his  stand  on  the  social  ladder,  some- 
thing more  tangible,  more  definite,  more  immedi- 
ate, more  worth  having  than  anything  dangled 
before  the  eyes  of  the  comrade  Socialist.  Taking 
the  individual  by  the  hand,  the  Catholic  Church 
says  :  "I  value  you.  I  esteem  your  own  personal 
worth,  and  I  watch  with  untiring  delight  your 
success,  which  is  certain  if  you  care  to  make  it  so. 
You  have  a  personal  equation,  a  personal  life, 
a  personal  mission.  You  are  dowered  with  an 
immortal  soul,  and  your  destiny  is  as  glorious  as  it 


86  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

is  enduring.  To  attain  your  end  you  must,  in 
a  word,  realize  yourself;  you  must  fulfil  your 
divine  mission.  That  is  what  I  care  about.  To 
attain  your  destiny  you  must  love  your  fellow-men 
and  work  for  their  spiritual  and  temporal  advan- 
tage. Listen  to  me,  and  I  will  show  you  how  to 
make  the  world  a  better  and  a  happier  place  for 
your  having  been  in  it.  I  will  teach  3'"ou  your 
duties  to  your  neighbour.  You  will  take  your 
place  in  the  great  battle  between  light  and  dark- 
ness. Your  love  of  Christ  will  lead  you  to  com- 
bat injustice,  to  promote  charity,  to  uplift  the 
downtrodden,  to  stamp  out  sweating,  to  make 
life  possible,  and  to  make  penury  and  misery  im- 
possible. And  your  reward  will  be,  not  merely 
the  thought  that  future  generations  will  be  happy, 
though  it  will,  indeed,  include  the  thought  that 
you  have  helped  to  bring  true  happiness  within 
reach  of  the  many.  Your  reward  will  be  that 
you  have  done  that  which  you  were  sent  to  do, 
and  that  you  have  secured  your  right  place  in 
the  Kingdom  where  personal  merit  meets  with  a 
reward  too  which  shall  be  personal,  though  at  the 
same  time  social.  You  will  not  have  flung  yourself 
away  for  others.  No,  you  will  have  saved  your 
own  soul  and  made  the  best  of  even  your  own  self, 
—  for  yourself  and  for  others.     God's  grace  will 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE    INDIVIDUAL  87 

be  your  comfort  and  your  strength  in  this  life. 
His  presence  and  His  glory  will  fill  you  in  the  world 
to  come.  Because  you  will  have  done  His  work 
and  fulfilled  His  designs  in  you,  His  word  to  you 
will  be  :   'I  am  thy  reward  exceeding  great.'  " 

This  is  a  message  that  a  Christian  people  can 
understand.  This  message,  and  this  alone,  will 
teach  them  restraint,  will  bear  them  up  and  on, 
and  give  them  courage.  Nay,  this  message  alone 
will  make  them  truly  unselfish.  And  it  will  be 
a  source  of  real  comfort  to  them  when  they  need 
it  most. 

Socialism  maybe  stimulating  enough  to  the  active 
young  man  who  finds  a  positive  phj^sical  exhilara- 
tion in  making  perfervid  speeches  to  appreciative 
audiences.  It  may  attract  the  men  whose  ex- 
perience of  the  world's  heartlessness  and  cruelty 
has  made  them  bitter  and  discontented.  It  may 
appeal  to  University  undergraduates  who  seek  for 
what  is  new,  and  for  what  smacks  of  generosity, 
and  creates  notoriety ;  to  bored  people  who  are  look- 
ing for  a  fresh  sensation  with  which  to  whet  their 
jaded  appetites.  But  what  can  it  do  for  broken 
men  and  women  who  are  preparing  to  face  eternity  ? 
What  can  it  do  for  the  strong  man  smitten  down 
by  a  hopeless  and  lingering  disease?  What  can 
it  do  for  the  woman  who  is  faced  with  the  pros- 


88  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

pect  of  carrying  a  poignant  sorrow  to  her  grave  ? 
What  can  it  do  for  the  thousands  of  our  fellows 
who  are  without  hope  in  this  world  ?  Small  com- 
fort to  them  to  dream  of  a  time  when  others  may 
fare  better.  They  want  to  feel  sure  of  the  strong 
arms  of  the  Everlasting  God  about  them,  and  to 
know  that  they,  too,  are  to  share  with  Him  His 
triumph  over  sin  and  death.  They  want  to  feel 
assured  that  their  pains  bravely  borne,  their  duty 
manfully  done,  their  failures  patiently  accepted,  are 
not  to  be  the  mere  condition  of  some  one  else's 
temporal  happiness  (on  the  Socialist's  own  showing 
they  are  often  not  even  as  much  as  this),  but  on 
the  contrary  that  they  are  to  be  the  recognized  ac- 
complishment of  the  work  which  they  were  sent 
to  do,  and  for  which  an  everlasting  personal  re- 
ward awaits  them.  In  a  word  the  people,  the  man 
in  the  street,  and  the  purveyor  of  goods,  all  of  us 
want  an  ideal.  He  may  know  it  not,  but  in  reality 
man's  need  is  Jesus  Christ. 

The  true  Christian  is  one  who  follows  Christ  and 
the  teaching  of  Christ  with  a  measure  of  enthusi- 
asm. There  is  no  philosophy  of  the  Academy, 
or  of  the  Porch,  or  of  the  Garden  which  can  pre- 
tend to  compete  with  Christ's  method  of  making 
the  most  of  a  disciple  —  of  making  the  bad  man 
good,  and  the  good  man  better.     If  you  want  to 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE    INDIVIDUAL  89 

cultivate  not  natural  virtue  merely,  but  charity  and 
chivalry  also,  you  must  leave  Plato  and  Socrates, 
Kant  and  Spencer,  and  enlist  in  the  service  of 
Christ.  Philosophy  may  indeed  act  as  a  finger- 
post on  the  roadway  of  life,  it  may  indicate  to  you 
the  way  to  a  naturally  good,  that  is,  to  an  unself- 
ish, state  of  life,  but  it  can  do  no  more.  It  is 
without  equipment  to  lay  hold  of  your  mind  and 
heart ;  it  has  no  personality  by  which  to  capture 
and  captivate  you,  no  living,  inspiring  example 
with  which  to  vitalize  and  actuate  you  spiritually. 

What  poor  humanity  stands  most  in  need  of, 
I  say,  is  an  ideal  that  will  uplift,  sustain,  and 
vitalize  all  its  senses  of  body  and  powers  of  soul. 
In  other  words  it  needs  the  leadership  and  the  ex- 
ample of  one  who  is  more  than  a  chieftain  to  his 
clan,  more  than  a  captain  to  his  troop,  more  than 
a  king  to  his  court,  more  than  a  lover  to  his  bride. 
There  is  one  such  ideal  and  one  such  only,  and 
His  name  is  Jesus,  the  Saviour. 

"It  was  reserved  for  Christianity,"  writes  the 
rationalist  historian  Lecky,  ''to  present  to  the 
world  life's  highest  ideal  —  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 
not  only  the  highest  pattern  of  virtue,  but  the 
strongest  incentive  to  its  practice."  Humanity 
to-day  wants  the  mind,  the  heart,  and  the  will  of 
the  Master,  Jesus  Christ.     It  needs  His  patience 


90  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

with  a  Nicodemus,  His  delicacy  with  the  Samari- 
tan, His  sympathy  with  a  Magdalen,  His  toler- 
ance with  the  harlot.  His  forgiveness  of  a  Peter, 
His  mercy  to  a  thief;  it  needs  His  methods  of 
going  about  doing  good;  having  compassion  on 
the  multitude;  with  a  mind  open  to  see,  with  a 
heart  open  to  feel,  with  a  hand  open  to  give. 
Christ,  with  His  principles  of  justice  and  charity, 
is  the  Social  Reformer  of  w^hom  the  world  stands 
in  need  to-day.  Behold  here,  then,  your  ideal, 
your  pattern  of  virtue,  and  your  incentive  to 
practise  it. 

The  immediate  end  set  before  you  is  a  life  per- 
meated through  and  through  with  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  the  remote  end,  union  with  Him  in  paradise. 

I  shall  be  told  by  not  a  few  ardent  Socialists 
that  the  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church  about 
other-worldliness  makes  men  indifferent  about 
securing  decent  conditions  of  life  for  others  in 
this  present  world.  The  Christian  Church,  they 
contend,  encourages  squalor  and  stagnation,  and 
is  an  obstacle  to  national  prosperity  and  progress. 
It  cares  for  the  self-regarding  virtues  only,  neg- 
lecting all  altruistic  tendencies. 

Such  charges  as  these  would  not  deserve  our 
attention  were  it  not  for  the  wide  extent  to  which 
they  prevail  in  the  popular  press.     The  author 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE   INDIVIDUAL  91 

of  that  admirable  book  called  ''The  Key  to  the 
World's  Progress"  has,  I  think,  made  it  clear 
that  the  Chm'ch  has  been,  at  least  indirectly,  a 
most  powerful  promoter  of  material  civilization, 
and  this  in  three  ways.  First  of  all,  she  has  put 
before  men  ideals  which  are  the  condemnation 
of  the  seven  deadly  sins,  in  which  are  included 
covetousness,  sloth,  and  idleness;  secondly,  she 
has  taught  men  the  dignity  and  duty  of  labor, 
reminding  them  that  "in  the  dim  morning  of 
society  Labour  was  up  and  stirring  before  Capital 
was  awake,"  placing  before  them  the  picture  of 
Christ  in  the  workshop  at  Nazareth  ;  and  thirdly, 
she  has  been  the  unfailing  upholder  of  family 
life  upon  which  material  civilization  and  true 
progress  depend. 

What  more  glorious  chapter  is  there  in  the  history 
of  the  last  two  thousand  years  than  the  record  of 
Christian  charity?  Turn  back  to  the  earliest 
ages  of  the  Church  and  you  will  find  her  bishops 
and  priests  and  laymen  erecting  institutions  for 
widows  and  orphans,  captives  and  debtors,  slaves 
and  poor.  You  will  find  the  Church  struggling 
to  abolish  slavery,  giving  dignity  to  labour,  im- 
proving the  condition  of  the  workers,  protecting 
the  weak  and  feeble,  taking  the  lead  in  religious 
and  secular  education  and  in  all  social  reform. 


92  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

And  her  spirit  is  still  active.  To  take  but  one 
page  of  this  glorious  story,  let  me  point  to  my  fel- 
low-Catholics in  England  to-day.  We  are  a  small 
minority  of  the  nation, — perhaps  one  in  seventeen. 
We  have  (through  no  carelessness  of  our  own)  far 
more  than  our  proportion  of  poor.  We  are 
strangled  by  the  expense,  unjustly  imposed  upon 
us,  of  paying  immense  sums  for  the  education  of 
our  children.  In  two  dioceses  alone  we  have 
spent  upwards  of  a  million  pounds  of  our  own 
money  in  building  schools,  and  many  thousands 
on  their  upkeep.  Yet  in  spite  of  all  this  we  have 
made  inconceivable  sacrifices,  both  in  money  and 
in  personal  service,  on  behalf  of  the  poor,  the  suffer- 
ing, and  the  afflicted.  I  would  ask  my  readers 
to  turn  to  that  last  edition  of  the  "  Handbook  of 
Catholic  Charitable  and  Social  Works"  (Catholic 
Truth  Society,  69  Southwark  Bridge  Road),  where 
they  will  find  a  perfectly  amazing  record  of  the 
work  that  has  been  done  in  England  alone  (at  the 
cost  of  God  knows  how  much  self-sacrifice)  by  our 
priests  and  nuns,  our  religious  orders,  our  devoted 
laymen  and  women.  They  will  read  of  a  score  of 
homes  for  the  aged  poor,  of  fifty  homes  for  boys  and 
girls,  nearly  as  many  orphanages,  fourteen  homes 
for  penitents,  hospitals  for  consumptives  and  for 
the  dying,  reformatory  schools,  refuges  and  rescue 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE    INDIVIDUAL  93 

societies,  shelters  and  soup-kitchens,  —  but  the  list 
is  interminable.  This  work  is  done  by  men  and 
women  who  shun  publicity  and  who  labour  in  the 
face  of  overwhelming  difficulties.  It  is  done  in 
many  cases  by  men  who  have  given  up  brilliant 
careers  in  the  world  for  the  sake  of  doing  work  like 
this :  by  delicately  nm'tured  ladies  who  have  put  on 
the  rough  robe  and  adopted  the  severe  rule  of  the 
Sisters  of  Charity  or  the  Nazareth  House  Nuns  in 
order  to  follow  Christ  more  closely  by  rendering  lov- 
ing service  to  His  poor.  I  have  spoken  of  the  good 
works  done  by  the  Catholic  Church  in  England 
only.  I  might  multiply  these  a  hundred  fold  by 
citing  similar  works  of  mercy  done  in  other  lands, 
notably  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

I  am  not  now  arguing  with  those  who  maintain 
that  all  these  duties  should  be  undertaken  by 
the  State.  I  am  arguing  with  those  who  say  that 
the  Christian  ideal  makes  men  selfish  and  indiffer- 
ent to  the  wants  of  their  suffering  brothers.  And 
I  say  that  their  contention  is  a  falsehood  which 
is  abundantly  disproved  by  the  facts  which  I 
have  quoted,  by  others  which  I  might  quote. 

And  I  say,  moreover,  that  Socialism  has  no  such 
record  to  show  us.  Where  can  it  point  to  a  similar 
unselfish  solicitude  for  human  sufferings  ?  It  has 
spread  much  bitterness  abroad ;  it  has  fostered  dis- 


94  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

content.  But  what  has  it  done  to  heal  the  wounds 
of  humanity  ?  What  has  it  done  to  wipe  away  its 
tears,  to  mitigate  its  pains,  to  console  its  death- 
bed? 

"By  their  works  you  shall  know  them."  True 
there  is  need  for  justice  as  well  as  charity.  But  the 
promoting  of  social  justice  is  enjoined  upon  us  by 
our  Christianity  no  less  than  charity;  and  the 
socialist  protest  against  charity  shows  quite  an 
extraordinary  ignorance  of  the  deepest  needs  of 
human  nature.  Charity,  in  the  Christian  sense  of 
the  term  (and  not  in  the  cold,  humanitarian  sense 
which  the  word  has  come  to  bear  in  these  days), 
will  always  have  its  necessary  place  in  the  world. 
The  world  without  it,  no  matter  to  what  perfection 
of  material  civilization  we  might  attain,  would  be 
a  sorry  place  to  live  in,  a  desert  without  an  oasis, 
a  land  without  sunshine.  Democracy  knows  this 
well  enough  in  its  hours  of  sober  reflection;  and 
those  who  endeavour  to  fill  its  ears  with  cheap  and 
cowardly  gibes  against  those  who  have  given  their 
lives  in  the  service  of  Christian  Charity  are  doing 
the  world  but  a  poor  service,  while  they  are  giving 
their  own  cause  away. 

But  let  me  turn  to  another  point  of  contrast 
between  the  socialistic  and  the  Catholic  ideal. 
The   Socialist  urges  that   Christianity  paralyzes 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE   INDIVIDUAL  95 

enterprise.  On  the  contrary  I  answer  that  it  is 
SociaKsm  that  paralyzes  enterprise  and  Chris- 
tianity that  fosters  it. 

Why  are  men  enterprising  ?  It  is  because  they 
feel  that  they  are  taking  part  in  a  struggle,  with 
the  hope  of  ultimate  victory,  in  a  cause  which  is 
worth  fighting  for.  If  any  of  these  conditions  be 
absent,  men's  enterprise  will  fail  them  and  their 
efforts  relax.  Before  you  can  get  men  to  work  for 
a  cause  you  must  convince  them  that  the  cause 
is  in  some  sense  a  ''good"  one,  that  their  efforts 
will  promote  it,  and  that  they  will  have  a  share  in 
its  ultimate  triumph. 

Now  it  does  not  require  a  very  extensive  ac- 
quaintance with  history  to  convince  us  that,  in 
modern  Europe  at  any  rate,  the  only  source  of  un- 
flagging enterprise  among  the  people  is  the  Chris- 
tian religion. 

Of  unflagging  enterprise,  observe :  and  among 
the  people.  There  may  indeed  be  found  apart 
from  Christianity  a  feverish  and  short-lived  enter- 
prise among  the  people,  just  as,  apart  from  Chris- 
tianity, there  may  be  found  unflagging  enter- 
prise among  the  few  who  have  the  advantages  of 
wealth  and  leisure,  of  intellectual  interests,  of  a 
promising  career  in  some  field  of  human  endeavour. 
But  you  will  not  get  unflagging  enterprise  among 


96  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

the  people  unless  they  are  moulded  by  the  spirit 
of  Christianity. 

Why  is  this  ?  The  reason  is  very  simple.  A 
wave  of  prosperity,  the  opening  up  of  new  fields  of 
industry,  imperialist  sentiment,  —  these  may  for  a 
time  occupy  the  popular  imagination  and  stimu- 
late to  action.  But  we  all  know  how,  with  the 
supplying  of  man's  material  desires,  comes  the 
growth  of  fresh  desires,  of  insatiable  desires. 
There  can  be  no  limit,  no  ultimate  satisfaction 
in  this  direction.  Progress  in  material  improve- 
ment, unbalanced  by  a  corresponding  growth  of 
character,  means  an  ever  growing  discontent. 

Material  improvements  will  not  of  themselves 
improve  character.  They  are  rather  a  test  of 
character,  a  snare  to  character.  The  mere  pos- 
session of  good  things  does  not  teach  us  how  to 
use  them.  It  merely  multiplies  our  temptations 
to  abuse  them.  To  teach  us  to  be  honest,  just, 
restrained,  unselfish,  we  must  be  inspired  by 
motives  strongly  set  in  religion.  For  these  we 
must  turn  to  Christianity.  Socialism  does  not 
even  pretend  to  supply  them.  Like  the  wisest 
human  philosophy  it  finds  such  a  task  entirely 
beyond  its  reach.  So  it  falls  back  on  the  comfort- 
able assumption  (which  is  dead  in  the  teeth  of 
history  and  common  sense)  that  when  people  are 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   INDIVIDUAL  97 

all  made  comfortable,  they  will  be  freed  from  their 
passions,  they  will  become  upright,  noble,  good. 

This  reassm'ing  doctrine  does  not  find  much 
support  in  fact.  Experience  does  not  go  to  show 
that  people  become  better  in  the  measure  in  which 
they  become  richer.  As  a  matter  of  fact  they  do 
not  even  become  kindlier,  gentler,  or  more  sym- 
pathetic wdth  those  they  have  left  behind.  Where 
wealth  accumulates,  says  the  poet,  men  decay. 
If  you  want  to  come  across  refinement,  content,  and 
buoyant  hope,  you  must  leave  the  palaces  of 
pleasure  and  the  mansions  wherein  is  found  "idle- 
ness and  fulness  of  bread,"  and  pass  out  into  the 
homestead  of  the  Breton,  or  the  chalet  of  the 
Tjrrolese,  or  into  a  cabin  in  Connemara ;  there  if 
your  eyes  are  open,  they  will  fill  with  tears  to  see  the 
spiritual  wealth  and  rare  beauty  of  those  children 
of  God  who  have  none  of  the  prizes  of  this  life, 
none  of  its  luxuries,  and  not  much  of  its  necessaries. 
One  day  as  I  stood  talking  to  my  friend  Bridget 
Joyce  in  the  far  West  of  Catholic  Ireland,  a  smart 
motor  whistled  past  and  was  soon  lost  in  a  cloud 
of  dust. 

"Well.  Bridget,"  said  I,  "and  what  do  you  think 
of  that  ?  Do  you  feel  envious  of  that  gallivant- 
ing lady?" 

Tui'ning  to  me  she  replied:  "Maybe,  Father, 


08  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

that  when  I  reach  heaven  I  will  give  her  a  start 
and  pass  her  myself,  never  mind  the  noise  and 
the  dust." 

I  might  multiply  incidents  so  typical  of  Catholic 
peasantry  to  whom  heaven  and  the  things  beyond 
are  a  much  more  intense  reality  than  any  gewgaws 
so  highly  prized  in  this  life.  Let  me  give  another 
little  story  proving  my  point  that  it  is  not  material 
well-being  that  is  the  first  necessit}^  for  contentment 
in  those  who  recognize  that  they  are  the  creatures 
of  God.  Not  long  ago  I  called  to  see  a  bed-ridden 
mill-hand  friend  of  mine  who  was  being  cared  for 
by  a  sister,  the  wife  of  a  worker  in  a  spinning  dis- 
trict in  the  north  of  England.  To  my  surprise 
I  saw  for  the  first  time  a  seventh  child,  a  crippled 
boy  about  seven  years  of  age,  among  her  brood 
in  the  kitchen.  Incidentally  I  discovered  that 
besides  the  bed-ridden  sister  this  crippled  urchin 
had  been  given  a  home  in  this  workingman's  four 
and  sixpenny  per  week  cottage.  When  I  expressed 
my  enthusiastic  appreciation  of  this  surpassing 
kindness  and  goodness,  the  woman,  who  was 
scrubbing  her  floor,  looked  up  and  said:  ''It's 
nought  much  to  be  proud  of.  Father ;  yon  cripple 
was  spoiling  to  death  where  he  was,  so  I  thought 
I'd  care  for  him  myself,  knowing  as  if  God  could 
provide  for  six,  He  wouldn't  let  us  go  short  with  a 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   INDIVIDUAL  99 

seventh."  But  what  need  is  there  of  adding  to 
this  list  which  might  be  drawn  out  to  any  length, 
to  prove  that  it  is  not  what  you  have  but  what 
you  are  that  really  matters  ! 

The  comfortable  doctrine  that  passions  fall  away 
in  proportion  as  comforts  arise  is  an  assumption 
which  reminds  me  of  the  proclamation  of  the  so- 
called  Knowledge  School,  —  that  man,  by  becom- 
ing scientifically  wiser,  becomes  morally  better. 
Truth  to  tell,  between  the  scientific  triumphs  over 
nature  and  spiritual  victories  over  self  there  is  no 
necessary  relation  at  all.  In  the  laboratory  there 
is  to  be  found  nothing  to  neutralize  the  poison  of 
human  passion ;  in  the  observatory  nothing  to  cor- 
rect the  aberrations  of  the  soul's  light ;  in  the  sur- 
gery nothing  to  heal  the  wounds,  or  to  mitigate  the 
pains  of  a  broken  or  aching  heart.  Scientific  cul- 
ture, like  material  prosperity,  has  no  moral  sense. 
It  is  not  from  the  microscope  nor  from  the  magnet, 
nor  from  the  scalpel,  nor  from  the  telescope,  nor  from 
any  other  scientific  instrument  that  man  learns  the 
secret  of  changing  his  heart  and  of  stimulating  the 
pulses  of  his  spiritual  life.  There  is  one,  and  one 
instrument  only,  that  can  enlighten  the  mind,  s\ib- 
due  the  will,  and  tame  the  heart,  bringing  to  the 
eyes  compunction  for  the  past,  and  to  the  whole 
being  resolution  for  the  future,  and  that  instru- 


100  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

ment  is  the  Cross  of  Christ :  "Ave,  Crux,  spes  unica." 
The  weapons  of  knowledge  may  indeed  serve  to 
make  the  material  world  better,  but  if  we  want  to 
improve  the  moral  world,  we  must  draw  its  amend- 
ment from  the  Crucifix.  If  the  Figure  on  the  Cross 
will  not  appeal  and  move  a  would-be-Christian 
people,  then  nothing  will. 

To  aim,  then,  at  the  improvement  of  material 
conditions  without  taking  thought  for  the  improve- 
ment of  character  is,  in  the  long  run,  to  defeat  one's 
object.  For  a  time  things  may  go  well  enough ; 
the  new  interests  may  keep  men  occupied  and  ab- 
sorb their  energies.  But  by  degrees  their  enter- 
prise will  become  feverish ;  they  will  deteriorate 
in  spirit  and  temper.  Social  life  will  become  an 
impossibility,  for  men  will  come  to  regard  material 
resources  as  the  one  aim  of  life.  Society  will  turn 
into  a  great  gam^e  of  grab,  terminating  in  results 
of  which  some  of  us  already  see  the  tokens.  Self- 
indulgence,  not  self-forgetfulness,  will  then  become 
the  order  of  the  day. 

''But,"  objects  the  Socialist,  "you  are  inconsist- 
ent. You  have  just  been  objecting  to  Socialism 
on  the  score  that  it  tells  men  to  be  unselfish  and  to 
work  for  the  coming  generation.  Now  you  object 
to  it  on  the  ground  that  it  leads  to  self-indulgence." 

I  answer  that  the  two  charges  are  perfectly  con- 


SOCIALISM   AXD    THE    INDIVIDUAL         101 

sistent.  Socialistic  principles  overlook  the  indi- 
vidual here  and  now,  and  endeavour  to  base  them- 
selves on  an  unreasonable  altruism.  Socialistic 
practice,  on  the  other  hand,  does  foster  just  that 
glorification  of  material  success  which,  as  I  have 
said,  must  end  by  defeating  its  own  object  and 
paralyzing  enterprise. 

The  rank  and  file  of  the  men  who  belong  to 
socialist  bodies  do,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  care  little 
about  generations  to  come.  They  will  have  the 
good  things  of  life  now.  They  want  here  and  now 
to  pass  into  their  Commonwealth,  their  earthly 
paradise.  "Every  man  standing  in  practical  life, " 
said  August  Bebel  at  Erfurt  in  1891,  ''knows  that  it 
is  not  by  om'  ultimate  goal  that  we  have  attracted 
these  thousands.  Of  our  ultimate  goal  they  are 
only  too  ready  to  say,  'What  is  the  good  of  our 
working  for  a  goal  that  we  shall  perhaps  never 
live  to  see  ? ' " 

This  is  a  somewhat  startling  admission  from  the 
recognized  leader  of  Socialism  in  view  of  his  dec- 
laration, already  quoted,  that  such  seeking  for 
immediate  results  is  deserving  of  all  censure.  But 
this  admission  can  be  matched  by  the  statements 
of  many  other  socialist  writers  who  have  in  similar 
fashion  given  their  case  away.  Listen,  for  in- 
stance, to  Horace  Gronland  :  — 


102  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

''It  is  to  the  discontented  wage  workers  that  the 
SociaHst  can  appeal  with  the  greatest  chance  of 
success.  .  .  .  The  masses  of  men  are  never 
moved  except  by  passions,  feeUngs,  interests." 
C'  The  Co-operative  Commonwealth,"  p.  184.) 

So  the  upshot  of  all  these  boasted  altruistic 
socialist  principles  is  to  be  an  unrestrained  rush  for 
"  the  Promised  Land."  What  effort  is  being  made 
to  train  the  people,  to  give  them  a  sense  of  respon- 
sibility, to  teach  them  restraint?  The  socialist 
leader,  having  enunciated  his  theory  as  to  the  pure 
disinterestedness  which  all  men  should  practise, 
gives  them  not  the  slightest  reason  for  practising 
it,  but  holds  up  to  them,  as  the  supreme  ideal,  a 
picture  of  mere  material  well-being.  He  then 
leaves  'Hhe  discontented  wage-earner"  to  secure 
the  carrying  out  of  the  plans.  To  get  his  self- 
denying  ordinance  put  into  execution  he  appeals  to 
''passions,  feelings,  interests." 

It  is  not  difficult  to  foresee  what  must  be  the 
result.  The  carrying  on  of  the  socialist  State 
would  demand  a  very  large  measure  of  altruism. 
This  quality,  so  far  from  being  increased  by  practi- 
cal socialist  propaganda  of  the  more  thorough- 
going type,  is  being  rapidly  diminished.  Hence 
Socialism  is  fostering  a  selfishness  which  would 
make  it  impossible  to  carry  out  their  scheme  of 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   INDIVIDUAL         103 

things  for  a  single  day.  You  cannot  grow  figs  of 
thistles. 

Were  Socialism  really  producing  in  men  the  un- 
selfishness and  nobility  of  character  without  which 
the  sociahst  State  could  not  be  got  to  work,  it 
would  demand  our  utmost  respect.  But,  then,  it 
might  become  obvious  even  to  Socialists  themselves 
that  the  socialist  State  would  not  be  needed. 
Were  we  good  enough  for  the  socialist  State,  we 
should  be  good  enough  to  do  without  it !  But 
the  fact  is  that  Socialism  is  not  making  men  any 
better.  It  cannot  do  so  as  long  as  it  limits  its 
horizon  to  the  improvement  of  material  conditions, 
sets  up  its  heaven  on  earth,  and  recognizes  no 
morality  but  self-interest  and  class-hatred. 

Very  different  are  the  principles  and  practice 
of  Christ's  Church.  She  begins  with  no  dis- 
paraging remarks  about  the  valuelessness  of  the 
individual.  She  tells  every  man  that  he  is  an  end 
in  himself,  that  he  is  of  unspeakable  worth,  that 
he  has  an  immortal  soul.  No  matter  what  his  for- 
tune or  his  position,  by  doing  his  duty  he  can  make 
his  life  a  triumphant  success.  Yes,  he  has  duties 
to  his  neighbour,  —  to  his  neighbour's  soul  first, 
and  then  to  his  neighbour's  body.  He  must  labour 
as  a  good  soldier  of  Christ,  and  as  a  good  citizen,  to 
remove  injustice  from  the  world.     He  must  take 


104  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

his  share  by  legislation,  by  personal  service,  by  en- 
terprise of  every  kind,  in  order  to  improve  those 
conditions  of  life  which  reduce  his  fellow-men  to 
abject  poverty,  disheartening  and  crushing  them 
and  making  them  incapable,  morally  speaking,  of 
living  a  Christian  life.  The  Christian  whose  re- 
ligion is  a  living  actuality  to  him  has  a  perpetual 
stimulus  to  beneficent  activity,  a  constant  spur  to 
unselfish  enterprise,  a  lasting  motive  to  works  of 
chivalry  and  charity.  Because  he  believes  in  a 
life  to  come,  he  will  help  to  make  this  world  a  better 
place ;  because  he  loves  Christ  and  sees  Him  in 
all  his  fellow-men  he  will  serve  all  men.  He  will 
value  influence  and  power  because  they  give  him 
increased  opportunities  of  doing  God's  work.  He 
will  value  knowledge  and  science,  literature  and 
art,  health  and  culture,  both  in  himself  and  others, 
because  all  these  things  are  the  reflections  of  God's 
wisdom  and  bounty,  goodness  and  beauty. 

He  is  heir  to  all  the  ages  and  the  brother  of  all 
mankind.  His  interests  extend  to  all  human 
action,  for  God's  interests  are  everywhere  involved. 
Above  all  he  has  a  permanent  motive  for  enter- 
prise, —  and  his  enterprise  will  be  marked  by  a 
restraint,  a  balance,  a  sureness  of  direction  which 
will  make  it  of  inestimable  value  to  the  world. 

His  enterprise  will  be  unflagging  because  he  is 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE    INDIVIDUAL         105 

not  fighting  a  losing  battle.  Socialism  has  not 
begun  to  score  yet ;  the  Socialist,  who  is  consistent 
to  his  principles,  has  to  admit  that  for  all  men 
now  living  life  is  a  ghastly  failure.  Not  so  the 
Catholic  Church.  She  is  winning  her  victories 
and  gathering  in  her  harvest  every  day  and  all 
day  long.  Every  day  many  hundreds  of  her 
children  meet  death  under  every  imaginable  cir- 
cumstance, —  in  youth,  in  old  age ;  in  poverty, 
in  prosperity.  But  the  Church  does  not  pause 
to  question  what  has  been  their  material  suc- 
cess in  the  past.  The  great  question  for  her 
is  not  how  much  they  had  a  year,  but  how  much 
they  are  going  to  have  for  ever.  Have  their  lives 
been  a  victory  for  Christ  ?  Have  they  done  their 
work  in  the  world?  Have  they  fulfilled  their 
mission  in  life  ?  They  may  have  contributed 
some  little  to  the  cause  of  social  reform ;  poor 
things,  they  had  enough  to  do,  it  may  be,  to  find 
a  bare  living  for  themselves  and  their  little  ones. 
They  may  have  been  pariahs  of  society,  —  "prob- 
lems" in  their  own  persons,  inmates  of  workhouses, 
or  dwellers  in  the  slums,  or  invalids  in  garrets. 
But  their  lives  were  precious  in  the  sight  of  the 
Eternal  Wisdom,  and  they  will  reap  their  reward 
and  wear  their  crowns,  —  else,  indeed,  their  lives 
were  a  failure.     Cardinal  Newman  has  described 


106  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

their  supreme  hope  with  a  master  hand.  It  is  a 
poor  dying  factory  girl  who  speaks  :  — 

''I  think  if  this  should  be  the  end  of  all,  and  if 
all  I  have  been  born  for  is  just  to  work  my  heart 
and  life  away,  and  to  sicken  in  this  dree  place, 
with  those  mill-stones  always  in  my  ears,  until  I 
could  scream  out  for  them  to  stop,  and  let  me  have 
a  little  piece  of  quiet,  and  with  the  fluff  filling  my 
lungs,  until  I  thirst  for  one  long  deep  breath  of  the 
clear  air,  and  my  mother  gone,  and  I  never  able 
to  tell  her  again  how  I  loved  her,  and  of  all  my 
troubles,  I  think,  if  this  life  is  the  end,  and  that 
there  is  no  God  to  wipe  away  all  tears  from  all 
eyes,  I  could  go  mad." 

I  know  I  shall  be  told  by  the  followers  of  modern 
ethics  that  we  ought  to  do  right  for  right's  sake, 
and  that  to  introduce  any  system  of  reward  or 
payment  is  stimulating  action  to  a  low  moral 
plane.  These  preachers  of  high  spirituality  do 
not  seem  to  me  to  know  much  about  the  humanity 
with  which  I  come  in  contact.  Right  for  right's 
sake  is  what  I  call  fair-weather  ethics.  Tell  the 
man  driven  mad  by  passion,  or  tell  the  woman  car- 
ried away  by  emotional  feeling,  to  remem.ber  right 
for  right's  sake,  and  they  will  not  so  much  as  pause 
to  listen  to  you.  They  will  give  you  the  slip  with 
a  smile  of  contempt  for  you  and  your  silken-thread 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE    INDIVIDUAL         107 

maxims.  Truth  to  tell,  under  the  burning  pressure 
of  passion  man,  and  woman  no  less,  needs  the 
strong  sanction  of  strong  morality.  Your  un- 
dogmatic  lay  morality  is  but  a  theory ;  it  cannot 
cope  with  difficulties,  it  imparts  no  loftiness  or 
strength  of  mind.  It  is  at  once  shattered  in  the 
stern  conflict  of  good  and  evil. 

For  a  moment  pause  and  consider  how  the  hope 
of  reward  is  the  great  stimulus  to  human  action. 
Among  other  characteristics  which  mark  off  man 
from  the  lower  creatures  there  is  this :  that  whereas 
they  work  without  any  object  or  end  in  view,  man 
as  man  always  acts  for  an  object,  or,  as  our  Lord 
puts  it,  for  a  reward. 

The  beasts  that  perish  eat,  or  walk,  or  toil,  or 
sport  without  any  sort  of  accompanying  reflection. 
They  live  in  the  moment,  and  for  the  moment, 
neither  looking  before  nor  after.  Theirs  is  a  me- 
chanical action,  to  which  they  are  moved  by  in- 
stinct, impulse,  or  necessity,  as  the  case  may  be. 

Man,  on  the  contrary,  no  matter  whence  his 
origin,  no  matter  whether  he  be  native  of  a  civilized 
land  or  barbarous,  no  matter  whether  lettered  or 
ignorant,  religious  or  profane,  Christian  or  heathen, 
always  proposes  some  object  to  be  obtained,  or 
some  danger  to  be  avoided  by  his  action.  So  true 
is  this,  that  those  actions  alone  are  termed  actus 


108  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

humard,  human  acts,  which  are  inspired  by  some 
reward  or  good  to  be  attained,  whereas  those  actions 
which  proceed  from  impulse  or  necessity  are  merely 
actus  hominis,  the  actions  done  by  a  man,  but  not 
manly  or  human  actions  properly  so  called. 

Man's  reason  imposes  on  him  this  necessity  in 
all  he  thinks,  says,  or  does  —  some  object  to  be 
secured.  The  action  itself  may  be  bad,  may  be 
immoral,  may  be  fraudulent,  still  he  proposes 
some  imagined  reward  to  be  obtained  by  it.  Men 
do  not  sin  for  sin's  sake  alone.  Or  the  action  may 
be  in  itself  indifferent,  as  walking  or  riding,  or 
painting  or  drawing,  but  there  is  still  some  object ; 
or  it  may  be  trivial,  a  mere  exercise  of  muscle,  such 
as  rowing  or  leaping,  but  yet  even  then  there  is 
still  an  object  in  view.  Or  again,  it  may  be  good 
in  itself,  as  almsgiving,  or  praying,  feeding  or 
nursing  the  poor,  instructing  the  ignorant.  No 
matter  what  the  action  is  which  happens  to  be  en- 
gaging a  man's  time  or  attention,  if  he  is  a  reason- 
able being,  he  will  be  moved  to  do  it  by  the  hope 
of  some  reward  unless  it  be  a  pure  love-act. 

This  reward  may  be  near  or  remote,  it  may  be 
attainable  or  unattainable,  it  may  be  good  or  bad, 
earthly,  temporal,  sordid;  or  heavenly,  eternal, 
and  divine ;  whichever  it  is,  it  never  ceases  to 
inspire  and  actuate  the  work  done. 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE    INDIVIDUAL        109 

Now  let  us  consider  for  a  moment  what  it  is 
that  determines  in  anj'^  particular  case  the  reward 
a  man  proposes  as  his  object. 

It  is  nothing  without,  outside  of  man,  for  nothing 
can  touch  and  force  a  man's  will.  You  may  phys- 
ically force  a  man's  limbs.  The  martyrs  were 
often,  by  brute  force,  compelled  to  offer  fire  and 
water  to  the  false  gods  of  the  heathen;  their 
bodies  were  thrown  to  wild  beasts ;  but  their  wills 
could  not  be  forced.  Not  even  God  Almighty 
forces  a  reluctant  will.  For  He  has  imposed  a  law 
on  Himself,  He  has  given  to  every  man  a  free  will, 
a  will  unfettered,  and  in  the  hands  of  man  are  life 
and  death.  In  his  own  choice  is  the  object  for 
which  he  will  contrive  and  labour  in  the  sweat  of 
his  brow.  If  he  toils  for  a  reward  from  God,  he 
shall  receive  one  ''exceeding  great"  ;  if  he  labours 
for  a  reward  from  men,  he  will  secure  one  scarcely 
worth  having. 

Once  more  I  ask :  Does  experience  go  to  show 
that  the  higher  a  man  mounts  the  social  ladder, 
the  stronger  becomes  his  attachment  to  his  fellows 
left  below  ?  The  prosperous  man  in  the  city,  even 
more  than  his  poor  brother  in  a  slum,  needs  the 
uplifting  force  of  a  great  ideal  to  save  him  from 
becoming  self-centred. 

Behold,  then,  the  two  rival  ideals  presented  to 


110  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

you  by  Socialism  and  Christianity.  The  former 
regards  this  Ufe  as  an  end  in  itself;  the  latter 
recognizes  it  as  a  preparation  for  a  life  to  come. 
Both  may  agree,  to  a  large  extent,  in  their  actual 
programmes  of  social  reforms ;  both  may  help,  if 
they  will,  to  make  life  less  bitter  to  om*  hewers 
of  wood  and  drawers  of  water.  Both  may  unite 
to  wipe  out  the  slumdoms  of  our  cities,  helping 
to  make  life  more  human  by  setting  up  a  better 
material  environment. 

We  must  not  forget  that  the  State  is  a  natural 
institution  with  well-defined  rights  and  duties, 
limited  by  the  prior  rights  and  duties  of  the  family 
and  of  the  individual.  Socialism,  on  the  contrary, 
is  an  economy  set  up  to  run  counter  to  the  purposes 
for  which  the  State,  under  the  providence  of  God, 
was  instituted.  Under  Socialism  State  action, 
instead  of  being  supplementary  to  individual  ac- 
tion, would  become  a  substitute  for  it.  The  in- 
dividual would  be  swallowed  up  by  the  State ; 
he  would  be  no  more  than  a  cell  in  its  great 
organism. 

This  I  declare  to  be  an  inversion  of  the  natural 
order.     Socialism  is  non-natural  if  not  unnatural. 

For  a  moment  let  me  develop  this  contention. 
Socialism  would  thwart  and  cripple  many  of 
those  natural  desires  and  aspirations  in  man  which 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   INDIVIDUAL        111 

should  be  by  all  means  fostered  and  developed. 
Socialism  would  paralyze  his  freedom. 

The  Sociahst  will  resent  this  and  say  that 
man  is  not  free  at  present,  that  he  is  broken 
on  the  wheels  of  a  cruel  industrial  system,  and 
that  he  never  will  be  set  free  till  Socialism  is 
triumphant. 

For  all  this  I  repeat  that  under  a  socialist  re- 
gime man  would  be  a  slave,  not  a  free  man.  Even 
though  he  had  plenty  to  eat  and  drink,  and  where- 
with to  be  clothed  and  wherein  to  find  shelter,  he 
would  in  no  true  sense  be  free.  Free  he  could  not 
be  because  he  would  not  be  master  of  his  own  life 
and  destiny.  Under  Socialism  no  man  would 
have  the  ordering  of  his  own  life.  He  would  be 
but  a  cog  in  the  State  machinery,  and  as  much 
under  State  control  as  an  electric  switch  in  the 
hands  of  its  owner.  Man  would  be  a  slave.  I 
admit  that,  owmg  to  abuses  that  have  crept  into 
the  present-day  sytem,  man  is  limited  in  his  choice 
of  vocation  in  life.  Under  Socialism  he  would 
have  little  or  no  choice  at  all.  His  own  life 
would  not  be  his  own.  The  libertj'-loving  citizen 
would  not  be  free.  He  would  be  crushed  out  of 
existence.  Under  Socialism  there  would  be  no 
use  for  anybody  who  was  not  bound  to  the  State 
as  his  supreme  Lord  and  Lawgiver. 


112  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Man  would  be  policed  by  one  supreme  public 
authority.  His  life,  his  talents,  his  activities,  his 
aims,  wishes,  and  aspirations  would  all  be  laid  on 
the  altar  of  sacrifice,  consecrated  to  State  service. 
How  would  this  suit  the  American  citizen,  who 
if  there  is  one  thing  he  almost  worships  it  is  his 
freedom  and  independence?  Why,  thousands 
upon  thousands  in  this  great  Republic  have  come 
over  here  from  the  other  side  in  order  to  escape 
what  Sociahsm  wants  to  increase  and  multiply  — 
the  network  of  red  tape,  the  snares  and  naggings 
of  officials  who,  at  home,  robbed  life  of  its  atmos- 
phere of  freedom.  But  not  only  would  man,  under 
a  socialist  State,  have  no  opportunity  of  ordering 
his  own  life  and  exercising  his  own  personal  free- 
dom, but  under  Sociahsm  he  would  find  no  scope  for 
the  expression  of  that  desire  of  owning  productive 
property  which  is  natural  to  man,  all  the  world  over. 
This  most  legitimate  desire,  inherent  in  our  race, 
is  a  natural  instinct  which  would  be  strangled  to 
death  in  the  hands  of  a  socialist  Commonwealth. 

Like  the  Socialist  the  Christian  recognizes  the 
modern  evils  of  capitalism,  but  he  would  abohsh 
these  evils  not  by  making  control  public,  but 
by  making  use  common.  "Whosoever  has  re- 
ceived from  the  divine  bounty,"  says  Leo  XIII, 
"sL   large    share   of   temporal   blessings,    whether 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   INDIVIDUAL         113 

they  be  external  or  corporal,  or  gifts  of  the  mind, 
has  received  them  .  .  .  that  he  may  employ  them 
as  the  steward  of  God's  Providence  for  the  benefit 
of  others." 

According  to  Catholic  teaching  the  State  has 
no  direct  and  immediate  power  over  private  prop- 
erty, but  it  may,  when  public  well-being  requires 
it,  step  in  and  reconcile  its  mode  of  acquisition  and 
its  use  with  the  common  good.  The  right  of  the 
State  is  a  power  of  jurisdiction  falling  directly  on 
the  individual,  indirectly  only  on  property.  If  the 
old  Catholic  laws  about  property  and  the  obliga- 
tions attaching  to  it  were  once  more  brought  into 
general  practice,  we  should  find  ourselves  many 
milestones  nearer  to  a  solution  of  our  present-day 
social  problems. 

Alas,  both  in  principle  and  in  spirit  Socialism 
and  Christianity  differ  widely,  and  are,  in  fact, 
altogether  beyond  hope  of  embracing  common 
lines  and  motives  of  action. 

Again,  I  must  insist  that  I  am  speaking  of 
Socialism  as  a  living  movement,  "as  a  philosophy 
of  human  progress  and  as  a  theory  of  social  evo- 
lution," and  not  as  an  economic  proposition  only. 
There  is  nothing  anti-Christian  in  the  idea  that  all 
capital  may  be  owned  by  the  community,  if  it 
can  be  lawfully  acquired  from  the  individuals 
I 


114  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

and  managed  for  the  common  good.  If  Socialists 
could  show  that  all  private  productive  property 
could  be  made  the  property  of  the  State  without 
the  violation  of  any  individual  right,  and  managed 
without  danger  to  man's  spiritual  or  temporal 
welfare,  there  are  many  earnest  Catholics  who 
might  join  hands  with  them  on  the  question  of 
common  ownership.  But  this  is  not  the  question 
I  am  discussing.  It  is  Socialism  as  a  going  con- 
cern, as  a  practical  movement,  as  an  energetic 
propaganda,  as  an  actual  energizing  enterprise, 
as  a  new  ethical  view  of  life  and  morality  that  I 
am  considering. 

And  I  say  that  historically  its  cause  is  inex- 
tricably bound  up  with  anti-Christian  postulates ; 
its  ideal  is  the  State,  and  it  worships  the  State  as 
its  maker,  as  its  god. 

Which  of  the  two  ideals,  let  me  ask  you,  will 
satisfy  the  deepest  needs  of  Democracy?  Which 
of  the  two  ideals  I  have  presented  to  you,  Christ 
or  the  State,  will  help  to  make  men  less  discon- 
tented, and  more  humane ;  which  will  teach  men 
to  become  pure,  and  brave,  and  true,  loyal  in  life 
and  death,  just  and  merciful,  generous  and  chiv- 
alrous ;  in  a  word,  which  will  inspire  them  to  be 
saviours  to  their  fellows  and  to  society?  Which 
of  these  two  cries  must  it  be :   ''On  to  Socialism," 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE   INDIVIDUAL        115 

or  ''Back  to  Christ"  ?    Choose  between  the  two; 
it  is  a  choice  between  Ufe  and  death. 

Remember,  Socialism  is  a  secularist  ideal.  It 
was  born  in  secularism;  it  has  been  matured  in 
secularism,  and  it  remains  and  must  continue  to 
remain  in  secularism,  if  it  is  to  be  true  to  itself. 
Its  horizon  rests  on  the  rim  of  this  world.  Were 
it  put  forward,  as  I  have  said,  as  a  mere  contribu- 
tion to  economics,  we  might  not  expect  it  to  make 
expHcit  mention  of  a  life  to  come,  but  because  it 
is  put  forward,  as  a  theory  of  life  and  as  an  all- 
embracing  ideal,  it  must  be  pronounced  to  be  a 
theory  as  dangerous  as  it  is  insidious. 

Alan  cannot  live  on  iced  sodas  and  whipped 
cream.  He  needs  religion,  and  society  cannot  en- 
dure without  religion.  Even  Herbert  Spencer,  the 
modern-day  philosopher,  at  the  end  of  his  life 
was  forced  to  admit  that  religion  is  the  very  stuff 
of  life,  that  it  is  necessary  for  all  healthy  and 
natural  well-being,  that  it  must  ever  be  a  factor 
in  the  development  of  a  people.  The  fact  is, 
as  the  poet  puts  it:  "Religion  is  all  or  noth- 
ing." 

An  ideal,  I  repeat,  every  man  must  have  before 
him.  The  ideal  that  has  been  before  the  Chris- 
tian world  for  two  thousand  years  is  Christ. 

Let  Democracy  rally  round  Him  closer  than  ever. 


116  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

As  in  the  past  He  broke  its  chains  of  slavery,  as 
in  the  past  He  proclaimed  that  the  middle  term 
between  individualism  and  collectivism  is  divine 
altruism,  so  does  He  continue  to  preach:  "Love 
one  another  as  I  have  loved  you."  If  there  are 
Socialists  who  tell  me  that  Christianity  has  al- 
ready been  tried  and  found  wanting,  with  all  the 
vehemence  of  my  soul  I  deny  it ;  and  from  this 
pulpit  I  declare  before  the  world  that  it  is  not 
Christianity  that  has  failed,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
it  is  the  plentiful  lack  of  Christianity  in  those 
calling  themselves  Christians  which  is  at  the  root 
of  our  present  anarchy  and  social  misery  and 
slavery.  What  to-day  is  wanted  is  not  less  but 
more  of  the  Christianity  which  renewed  the  face 
of  the  earth  when  it  was  in  a  worse  plight  than  it 
is  to-day.  The  social  organism  needs  to  be  re- 
vitalized by  the  Christ-Spirit. 

The  rivalry  between  Capital  and  Labour,  if  the 
teachings  of  Christ  were  followed,  would  be  a 
rivalry  of  service,  as  in  reality  the  true  measure 
of  Christian  greatness  must  be  interpreted  in 
terms  of  service  both  to  God  and  our  neighbour. 
If  only  we  could  keep  before  our  minds  and  draw 
into  our  hearts  the  all-embracing  principles  of 
Christ's  Christianity,  if  only  we  were  actuated  by 
His  motives,  we  should  find  that  the  solution  of 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE    INDIVIDUAL         117 

the  economic  problems  before  us  to-day  begins 
not  with  the  reform  of  society,  but  with  the  re- 
form of  the  individual. 

I  repeat,  the  greatest  social  Reformer  the  world 
has  yet  seen  was  Christ  Himself,  and  it  was  to  the 
individual  He  appealed  when  He  came  to  redeem 
the  race.  His  language  was  :  ''If  thou  wilt  come 
after  Me,"  ''If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,"  "If  thou  wilt 
enter  into  eternal  life."  It  was  to  the  individual 
He  addressed  Himself;  it  was  through  the  in- 
dividual that  He  would  restore  fallen  humanity; 
and  it  is  with  the  individual  we,  too,  must  begin 
if  we  would  associate  ourselves  with  Him  in  the 
fruitful,  if  toilsome,  work  of  Social  Reformation. 

Let  us  start  this  work  in  our  own  homes,  and 
carry  it  forward  into  our  own  street,  into  our  own 
State,  till  at  length  this  Great  Republic  shall  be- 
come renewed  and  revitalized  with  the  spirit  of 
Him  who  is  still  our  Ideal,  our  Inspirer  as  well  as 
our  Redeemer. 


IV 

SOCIALISM  AND   THE   FAMILY 

There  is  no  more  beautiful  creation  on  earth 
than  the  Christian  family  as  it  has  been  lived  for 
nearly  two  thousand  years  in  the  well-ordered 
Christian  home.  Home !  What  sweet  and  sa- 
cred memories  does  that  word  recall  to  us;  what 
hours  of  sunshine,  peace,  and  joy  it  brings  back 
to  our  lives,  checkered  too  often  by  suffering  and 
shadowed  by  grief!  But  home  is  a  name  that 
stands  for  something  more  than  the  roof  tree  of 
a  family  circle,  it  rises  before  us  as  a  pillar  of  the 
State,  as  its  strongest  and  noblest  support. 

To  interfere,  then,  with  the  sanctions  of  married 
life,  to  attempt  to  shift  its  centre  of  gravity,  or 
to  dare  loosen  its  strong  human  ties,  means  an 
attack  upon  the  stability  of  the  State  itself,  and  is 
a  menace  to  the  foundation  upon  which  it  rests. 

In  this  Conference  I  shall,  first  of  all,  remind 
you  of  what  is  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church 
with  regard  to  marriage  and  the  family,  and  I 
shall  then  go  on  to  point  out  in  what  the  teach- 
ing of  Socialism  differs  from  it.     What  we  want 

118 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   FA:MILY  119 

to  discover  is  this :  Can  their  views  be  made  to 
agree,  or  are  they  utterly  and  hopelessly  irrecon- 
cilable? These  are  questions  which  demand  our 
closest  attention,  for  we  are  going  to  test  the 
actual  foundations  upon  which  this  Great  Re- 
pubUc  depends  for  its  stability,  unity,  and  strength. 

We  know  "without  consulting  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis,  or  appeaUng  to  tradition,  that  God 
made  the  family.  We  infer  it  because  the  family 
is  ''the  prerequisite  of  production,  the  ordinary 
unit  of  enjoyment,  the  foundation  of  national 
welfare  and  greatness,  and  the  principal  source, 
in  the  natural  order,  both  of  virtue  and  happi- 
ness."    (C.  S.  Devas,  "Political  Economy.") 

By  the  family  I  mean  a  compound  society  made 
up  of  two  elementary  societies,  the  conjugal  and 
the  parental.  The  former  is  the  lasting  union  of 
a  man  and  a  woman  for  the  purpose  of  propagating 
and  educating  their  kind.  The  latter  is  the  last- 
ing union  of  parents  and  offspring  for  the  purpose 
of  education.  The  essential  qualities  of  the  fam- 
ily are  thus  summed  up  by  a  recent  writer :  — 

"The  object  of  conjugal  society  or  marriage 
requires  its  indissolubihty ;  the  equal  personal 
dignity  of  its  members  postulates  their  equahty 
in  essential  rights ;  the  nature  of  their  union  im- 
plies  mutual   love,  friendship,  and   faithfulness; 


120  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

the  unity  and  harmony  of  action  necessary  for  the 
achievement  of  the  common  end  demands  obe- 
dience of  the  wife  to  the  husband,  not  hke  that  of 
a  slave  to  the  master,  but  rather  hke  that  of  a 
mate  to  a  friend  and  of  a  member  to  the  head. 

''Parents  are  under  the  strict  obligation,  laid 
on  them  directly  by  the  Author  of  nature,  to 
impart  to  their  children  physical,  intellectual,  and 
moral  education,  and  to  devote  their  entire  energy 
to  the  accomplishment  of  this  task ;  but  they  are 
at  the  same  time  clothed  with  sacred  and  invio- 
lable authority  over  them.  ' '  (Ming , ' '  The  Morality 
of  Modern  Socialism,"  pp.  152-153.) 

What  has  the  Catholic  Church  done  for  this 
natural  institution,  the  family? 

She  has  raised  it  into  a  higher  plane.  It  was 
God-given  from  the  beginning.  The  Catholic 
Church  has  made  it  God-like,  —  a  picture  of 
God.  The  marriage  bond  has  become  the  authen- 
tic symbol  of  the  union  between  Christ  and  His 
Church.  It  was  a  contract ;  it  has  become  a 
sacrament,  and  a  ''great  Sacrament."  Let  us 
go  into  this  aspect  of  the  question  a  little  more 
fully.  It  will  help  to  show  how  Catholic  and 
socialist  views  of  the  family  are  irreconcilable. 

In  bridegroom  and  bride  the  Catholic  Church 
sees  not  merely  the  prospective  father  and  mother 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   FAMILY  121 

of  a  family  that  shall  rise  up  to  call  them  blessed, 
but  generation  following  generation,  each  charged 
with  a  mission  and  deputed  to  a  work  for  the  good 
of  Church  and  State. 

Not  without  reason  does  St.  Paul,  as  he  con- 
templates the  grandeur  of  Christian  marriage, 
exclaim :  ''This  is  a  great  mystery,"  a  mysterious 
religious  rite,  a  great  Sacrament.  Originally  a 
divine  institution,  marriage  has  been  raised  by 
Jesus  Christ  into  a  sacramental  union. 

Of  all  the  seven  sacraments,  matrimony  is  the 
only  one  in  which,  not  the  priest,  but  the  contract- 
ing parties  themselves  are  the  officiating  ministers. 

Not  only  does  the  Christian  dispensation  con- 
vert the  natural  into  a  religious  contract,  but  it 
raises  those  entering  into  it  to  a  sacramental  state 
of  Hfe.  Truly  "It  is  a  great  sacrament."  Shall 
we  not  call  marriage  a  sublime  state,  giving  as  it 
does  to  man  and  wife  the  claims  on  never  failing 
special  graces  to  meet  the  special  trials  inevitable 
to  their  state  ?  But  the  sacred  career  upon  which 
man  and  woman  enter  on  their  wedding-day  is 
laden  with  consequences,  not  to  themselves  only, 
but  also  to  the  State  and  to  the  Christian  Church. 
Hence,  in  the  midst  of  his  eulogy  of  the  sacrament 
of  matrimony,  the  Apostle  pauses  to  remind  us 
that  he  is  speaking  "in  Christ  and  in  the  Church." 


122  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

Never,  perhaps,  since  the  letter  to  the  Ephesians 
was  written  has  there  been  so  much  reason  as  now, 
when  the  birth-rate  is  decreasing,  and  the  divorce 
Hst  is  increasing,  and  Socialism  is  developing,  to 
emphasize  the  warning  note  of  the  Apostle,  who 
would  seem  to  say,  the  marriage  state  is,  indeed, 
sacred  and  sublime,  nay,  a  mysterious  rite,  "a. 
great  Sacrament";  but  for  those  only  whose 
union  in  some  sense  symbolizes  the  alliance  be- 
tween Christ  and  His  Church. 

Regarded  as  a  mere  social  contract  it  is  shorn  of 
all  beauty  and  sublimity;  it  is  a  market  good, 
often  an  economic  asset  only.  For  a  moment  let 
us  hft  the  eyes  of  our  souls  to  contemplate  the 
Mystic  Union  referred  to  by  St.  Paul,  and  recog- 
nize the  one  supreme  and  absolute  standard  by 
which  to  gauge  the  rightness  and  sacredness  of 
Christian  wedded  life. 

In  Christ  and  His  Church  we  see  a  union  in 
which  three  characteristics  stand  out  in  boldest 
prominence.  It  is  a  union  which  is  indissolubly 
one ;  it  is  a  union  which  is  indefectibly  true ;  and 
it  is  a  union  which  is  indestructibly  good. 

Of  His  Bride,  the  Church,  Christ,  the  Bride- 
groom, says,  ''My  perfect  one  is  but  one."  So 
indissolubly,  so  intimately  is  she  one  with  Him  that 
she  becomes  His  Body,  and  He  her  Head,  so  that 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE   FAMILY  123 

in  loving  her  He  loves  Himself;  while  to  her  He 
communicates  His  own  imperishable  hfe,  declar- 
ing, with  prophetic  word,  that  no  matter  what  the 
rage  of  kings,  or  the  mahce  of  men,  or  the  gates 
of  hell  may  devise  for  her  destruction,  never  shall 
they  prevail  against  her.  The  union,  then,  be- 
tween Christ  and  the  Church  is  indissoluble. 
But  more,  this  Mystic  Union  is  one  that  is  inde- 
fectibly  true ;  true  because  of  the  mutual  trust 
and  confidence  subsisting  between  the  divine 
Bridegroom  and  His  Bride.  To  His  Spouse,  the 
Church,  Christ,  her  Lord,  intrusts  without  fear 
not  only  the  proclamation  of  His  reign,  the  pro- 
mulgation of  His  laws,  the  teaching  of  His  dog- 
matic code  and  the  guardianship  of  His  moral 
precepts,  but  also  the  custody  of  His  reputation, 
of  His  character,  nay,  of  His  divine  personality 
itself,  knowing  she  will  suffer  neither  prelate  nor 
potentate  to  tamper  with  any  the  least  tenet  of 
His  revealed  teaching.  So  indefectibly  true  Christ 
knows  her  to  be  that  He  does  not  hesitate  to  pro- 
claim:  ''He  that  heareth  you  heareth  Me,  and 
He  that  despiseth  you  despiseth  Me."  And  so, 
the  union  between  Christ  and  His  Church  is 
indefectible.  Now  let  us  pass  from  this  indissolu- 
ble and  indefectible  character  of  Christ's  mystic 
marriage  with  the  Church  to  consider  its  inde- 


124  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

structible  goodness.  It  is  this  divine  attribute 
of  goodness,  of  imperishable  goodness,  which  most 
of  all  we  admire  and  praise  in  the  Mystic  Wedded 
Life  to  which  I  refer.     We  are  told  by  the  poet :  — 

'Tis  only  noble  to  be  good. 

How  supremely  true  are  these  words !  Apart 
from  true  sanctity,  there  is  no  true  nobility.  Not 
only  is  goodness  the  root,  the  bloom,  and  the 
fruit  of  nobleness,  but  its  very  beauty  and  its 
fragrance. 

Whatever  else  she  may  be  to  those  who  are  with- 
out spiritual  insight,  to  the  King's  Son  the  Church 
is  ^'without  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing" ; 
she  is  holy  and  beautiful,  ^'without  blemish." 
In  words  such  as  these  does  the  inspired  Apostle 
eulogize  the  goodness  and  beauty  of  Christ's 
mystic  Bride.  This  goodness,  inherent  in  her 
constitution,  is,  Uke  all  goodness,  self-diffusive, 
prodigal,  prolific.  Witness  the  tender  piety  of 
her  little  children,  the  patience  and  charitableness 
of  her  many  poor,  and  the  heroic  yet  attractive 
sympathy  of  her  saints. 

How  could  she  well  be  else,  seeing  that  to  dower 
her  with  His  own  divine  gifts  Christ,  her  Spouse, 
"delivered  Himself  up  .  .  .  cleansing  her  by  the 
laver  of  water  in  the  word  of  life"  ? 


SOCIALISM   AKD   THE   FAIVIILY  125 

Glance  back  down  the  ages  and  catch  sight  of 
His  beloved  one,  at  His  invitation  to  the  sacred 
nuptials,  coming  forth  "as  the  morning  rising, 
fair  as  the  moon,  bright  as  the  sun,  terrible  as  an 
army  set  in  array."  ''This  is  a  great  Sacrament ; 
but  I  speak  in  Christ  and  in  the  Church."  The 
union  between  Christ  and  His  Church  is  indestruc- 
tible. Here,  in  the  picture  I  have  attempted  to 
hft  up  before  you,  you  may  see  for  yourselves  what 
are  to  be  the  chief  features  which  man  and  woman 
who  become  husband  and  wife  must  copy  into 
their  own  wedded  life. 

To  nothing  less  than  this  their  troth  is  pledged, 
having  already  at  the  altar  said  each  to  each, 
"I  take  thee  from  this  day  forward,  for  better, 
for  worse,  for  richer,  for  poorer,  in  sickness  and 
in  health,  till  death  do  us  part."     So  shall  it  be :  — 

By  your  troth  she  shall  be  true, 

Ever  true,  as  wives  of  yore ; 
And  her  "  Yes  "  once  said  to  you, 

Shall  be  true  for  evermore. 

Married  life  is  thus  indissolubly  one,  infallibly 
true,  and  indefectibly  good  — but,  "I  speak  in 
Christ  and  in  His  Church." 

The  Catholic  Church  has  indeed  drawn  closer  the 
marriage  bond,  and  ennobled  conjugal  love. 

Look  at  the  various  types  of  the  pre-Christian 


126  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

family  described  by  Mr.  Devas  in  his  ''  Studies  of 
Family  Life."  There  was  much  good  in  them,  but 
evil  had  crept  in  with  the  good.  The  ideal  family 
life  was  first  revealed  to  the  world  in  the  cottage 
home  at  Nazareth.  That  example  has  been 
treasured  by  the  Catholic  Church  and  held  up 
before  the  eyes  of  the  world  for  two  thousand  years. 
No  one  can  study  the  mysteries  revealed  to  us  in 
that  homestead  among  the  highlands  of  Galilee 
without  realizing  more  fully  what  the  sanctity  of 
home  life  means  for  the  Christian  family. 

What  has  been  the  result  of  this  study?  To 
answer  that  question  would  take  me  far  beyond 
the  limits  of  this  Conference.  But  let  me  recall 
a  few  facts. 

Christianity,  and  Christianity  alone,  has  given 
woman  her  right  position  in  the  family  and  in 
society.  It  has  honoured  womanhood,  wifehood, 
and  motherhood  as  they  had  never  been  honoured 
before.  Some  modern  writers  by  misunderstand- 
ing or  by  misinterpreting  decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Auxerre,  and  the  discussions  at  the  Council 
of  Macon,  try  to  make  out  that  the  Catholic  Church 
at  one  time  doubted  whether  women  had  souls 
at  all;  and  they  attempt  to  support  their  thesis 
by  citing  passages  from  early  Christian  writers, 
notably  TertuUian,  Origen,  and  St.  Jerome.    But 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE   FAMILY  127 

it  is  to  no  purpose.  To  the  Catholic  Church  and 
to  none  other,  woman  must  turn  when  she  wants  to 
point  to  the  source  of  her  position  in  Christian  so- 
ciety. Christianity  will  tolerate  neither  the  servil- 
ity nor  the  frivolity  which  marks  the  relation  of 
wife  to  husband  in  non-Christian  civilizations. 
Christianity  refuses  to  regard  woman  as  man's 
drudge,  or  the  sport  of  his  lust.  Christian  mar- 
riage, as  I  have  pointed  out,  is  a  high  and  holy 
thing,  involving  obligations  of  faithfulness  and 
mutual  honour  and  service  which  press  on  the  hus- 
band as  well  as  upon  the  wife.  Christian  marriage 
is  full  of  responsibiHty  and  exacts  a  high  standard, 
but  it  is  rich  in  rewards  and  draws  down  bless- 
ings upon  itself  and  on  the  country  where  it  is 
held  in  honour. 

The  popular  estimate  of  the  family  (writes 
Bishop  Westcott)  is  "an  infallible  criterion  of  the 
state  of  society.  Heroes  cannot  save  a  country 
where  the  idea  of  the  family  is  degraded." 

Needless  to  say,  the  Catholic  Church  has  al- 
ways stood  for  the  sacred  character  of  the  family, 
nor  will  she  have  anything  to  do  with  slacken- 
ing the  marriage  ties  knit  together  so  closely  by 
God's  own  hand. 

Fearlessly  from  this  pulpit  I  proclaim  that  the 
Church  of  Christ   has  rendered    inestimable  ser- 


128  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

vice  to  civilization  by  insisting  on  the  sanctity 
and  stability  of  wedded  life.  All  through  the 
ages  the  Popes,  no  matter  what  the  lives  of  some 
few  of  them  may  have  been,  have  always  shown 
themselves  to  be  inflexible  in  the  matter  of  Chris- 
tian marriage.  A  lustful  king  seeks  sanction  from 
Rome  for  his  adultery.  That  sanction  is  refused. 
Not  by  a  hair's-breadth  will  Rome  swerve,  even 
though  a  king  threatens  to  drag  a  great  nation 
into  schism.  For  no  consideration,  even  of  State, 
will  Rome  permit  a  reigning  sovereign  to  dismiss 
his  lawfully  wedded  wife.  This  fact  stares  out 
upon  us  Catholics,  not  only  in  the  land  from 
which  I  come,  but  I  may  add  in  all  other  climes 
also  where  the  history  of  England  is  read.  Had 
Pope  Clement  VII  jdelded  to  the  pressure  brought 
upon  him  by  the  Eighth  Henry,  England  to-day 
might  still  have  been  Catholic,  but  the  Pope  re- 
fused to  put  asunder  what  God  had  joined  to- 
gether. The  matter  lay  beyond  his  authority 
and  jurisdiction. 

We  are  living  in  a  day  when  in  most  countries 
the  civil  law  has  usurped  an  authority  beyond  the 
powers  of  Christ's  own  Church,  and  has  de- 
clared marriage  to  be  not  a  sacred  and  indis- 
soluble union,  but  a  civil  contract  only  —  in  some 
States  of  this  Great  Republic  to  be  almost  as 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   FAMILY  129 

easily  unmade  as  made.  This  civil  law  of  com- 
plete divorce,  I  need  not  remind  you,  is  intrin- 
sically wrong.  It  is  a  violation  of  the  revealed 
law  of  God,  and  is  condemned  by  the  Catholic 
Church.  There  are,  indeed,  cases  when  a  Catho- 
lic, who  has  no  intention  of  attempting  a  second 
marriage,  but  is  merely  wanting  to  get  civil  free- 
dom from  an  adulterous  partner,  may  seek  it  by 
a  sentence  of  divorce  in  the  civil  courts.  But 
this  is  a  totally  distinct  matter  from  procuring 
divorce  "udth  the  intention  of  remarrying.  On 
the  question  of  divorce  and  judicial  separation  a 
Catholic  holds  unhesitatingly^  and  tenaciously  the 
teaching  of  the  divine  Master  as  interpreted  by 
His  Chuich.  Accordingly,  we  maintain  to-day, 
in  the  twentieth  century,  what  was  proclaimed  in 
the  first,  that  between  man  and  wife  there  can  be 
no  divorce  till  death  do  them  part  —  no  divorce, 
that  is  to  say,  with  the  intention  of  remarrying. 
Behold  here  the  wording  of  the  Christian  law. 
It  is  uncompromising,  absolute,  final. 

If  examples  be  cited  from  history  which  seem 
to  show  that  the  Holy  See  has  known  how  to 
yield  in  exceptional  cases,  even  with  this  divine 
law  before  its  eyes,  let  me  at  once  say  that  these 
examples,  so  freely  and  so  often  quoted,  are  alto- 
gether beside  the  mark.     They  are  declarations  of 


130  :SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

nullity,  not  of  divorce.  After  investigating  the 
facts  of  the  case  submitted  to  it,  the  ecclesiastical 
court  has  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  parties 
were  never  married  at  all;  in  a  word,  that  God 
never  joined  them  together.  Besides,  it  must  be 
borne'  in  mind  that  the  words  of  the  sacred  text 
referred  to  are  to  be  understood  in  their  rigorous 
sense  of  consummated  Christian  marriage  only. 
For  grave  reasons  the  Church  may  dissolve  a 
non-consummated  marriage,  but  into  this  there 
is  no  time  nor  need,  for  the  moment,  to  enter. 

Outside  the  Church  there  seems  to  be  a  strong 
feeling  against  legal  separation,  which  has  been 
called  "divorce  without  the  right  to  remarry." 
Unquestionably,  separation  may  be  a  great  dan- 
ger to  either  or  both  parties  concerned.  For 
that  reason  every  influence  that  can  be  ought  to 
be  brought  to  stave  off  separation.  But  because 
such  separation  may  be  trying  to  virtue,  it  does 
not  entitle  the  parties  so  tried  to  yield  to  tempta- 
tion, to  defy  God's  law,  and  at  once  to  take  pro- 
ceedings for  divorce  with  the  object  of  remarry- 
ing. Altogether,  we  reject  the  contention  that 
the  essence  of  marriage  is  "sexual  faithfulness," 
which,  if  violated  by  either  party,  begets  a  right 
for  the  dissolution  of  marriage. 

We  are  told  that  England,  "like  other  Protes- 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE    FAMILY  131 

tant  and  enlightened  countries,"  has  left  the 
Catholic  Church  behind  to  follow  in  this  matter 
the  United  States  of  America.  If  my  dear  coun- 
try wants  to  switch  on  and  off  divorce  almost  as 
easily  as  it  does  its  electric  light,  I  for  one,  with 
all  the  force  of  my  being,  condemn  its  action  not 
only  as  derogatory  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
community,  but  still  more  as  constructive  treason 
against  the  majesty  of  Christ. 

A  modern  writer  has  warned  us  that  "if  we  want 
to  make  marriage  stronger  in  the  affections  of  the 
people  we  must  make  divorce  more  easily  attain- 
able." Are,  then,  the  CathoHc  people  of  Cathohc 
Ireland,  who  have  no  law  of  divorce,  a  melancholy 
and  miserable  community?  Is  it  a  fact  that 
compared  with  Irish  CathoUcs  our  Nonconform- 
ist brethren  are  all  brightness,  wit,  and  humour  ? 

Truth  to  tell,  England  would  do  better  to  learn 
her  marriage  lesson  from  Cathohc  Ireland  than 
from  the  United  States  of  America.  During  the 
past  forty  years  we  have  progressed  rapidly 
enough  without  wishing  to  emulate  the  practices 
of  some  of  the  States  in  the  great  and  glorious 
Republic  of  America.  The  rapid  growth  in  divorce 
proceedings  at  home  during  the  period  referred 
to  ought  in  all  conscience  to  satisfy  the  wildest 
advocates    of    divorce.     My    experience  of    the 


132  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

working  classes,  confined  not  altogether  to  the 
Catholic  community,  does  not  lead  me  to  think 
that  they  feel  very  much  aggrieved  by  the  law 
as  it  at  present  stands.  Quarrels  between  man 
and  wife  are  more  readily  adjusted  among  them 
than  they  are  in  classes  higher  up  the  social 
ladder.  They  settle  their  own  differences  without 
extraneous  aid.  They  accept  the  inevitable ;  as 
a  rule,  they  forgive  and  forget.  Is  the  commer- 
cial instinct  so  highly  developed  in  some  of  us  that 
we  at  once  consider  it  part  of  our  mission,  where 
there  is  no  want  of  divorce,  to  create  it  ?  What 
England,  with  most  other  lands  to-day,  needs,  is 
not  what  must  tend,  by  breaking  up  the  family, 
to  disintegrate  her  Empire,  but  on  the  contrary, 
what  most  of  all  she  desiderates  is  what  knits 
into  closer  intimacy  the  ties  of  family,  that  so 
the  country  may  grow  for  her  a  race  of  sons,  pure, 
brave,  and  strong  to  hold  their  own  against  the 
world.  ''Divorce  made  easy,"  ''done  while  you 
wait,"  will  not  make  for  the  manhness  of  any  race. 
There  is  nothing  in  it  with  which  to  stiffen  and 
strengthen  character.  Divorce,  with  rare  excep- 
tion, spells  betrayal  of  troth,  surrender  of  prin- 
ciple, national  disaster. 

And  now  let  me  pass  to  speak  of  the  offspring 
of  married  Ufe.     The  Church  rejects  the  old  pagan 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   FAMILY  133 

view  that  the  child  is  merely  the  property  of  the 
parents ;  she  holds  that  the  child  has  received  its 
iminortal  soul  directly  from  God.  Yet  she  also 
rejects  the  false  philosophy  which  would  sever 
the  child  from  its  parents,  and  make  it  the  property 
of  the  State.  Parents  and  children  are  closely 
knit  together  by  links  of  mutual  duty  and  love, 
with  which  no  State  may  interfere.  Again  and 
again  has  the  Catholic  Church  had  to  protest 
against  governments,  which,  blindly  ignorant  of 
the  true  sources  of  national  strength  and  well- 
being,  have  endeavoured  to  weaken  family  ties 
and  assume  the  duties  which  properly  belong  to 
parentage.  The  one,  unchanging  Catholic  cry 
through  the  past  three  decades  of  years  has  been 
the  plea  for  parental  rights  in  determining  what 
shall  be  the  child's  rehgious  education.  Upon 
this  question  the  Catholic  Church  has  made  her- 
self heard  and  felt  as  none  other.  Pope  Leo  in 
his  Encyclical  on  the  ''Condition  of  Labor,"  says : 
''Parental  authority  can  be  neither  abolished  nor 
absorbed  by  the  State ;  for  it  has  the  same  source 
as  human  life  itself.  The  child  belongs  to  the 
father,  and  is,  as  it  were,  the  continuation  of 
the  father's  personality;  and,  speaking  strictly, 
the  child  takes  its  place  in  civil  society  not  by  its 
own  right,  but  in  its  quality  as  a  member  of  the 


134  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

family  in  which  it  is  born.  And  for  the  very 
reason  that  'the  child  belongs  to  the  father,' 
it  is,  as  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  says,  'before  it 
attains  the  use  of  free-will,  under  power  and 
charge  of  its  parents.'  The  Sociahsts,  therefore, 
in  setting  aside  the  parent  and  setting  up  a  State 
supervision,  act  against  natural  justice,  and  break 
into  pieces  the  stabihty  of  the  family." 

''Every  child,"  says  Bebel,   "that  comes  into 
the  world,  whether  male  or  female,  is  a  welcome 
addition  to  society;   for  society  beholds  in  every 
child  the  continuation  of  itself  and  its  own  fur- 
ther development ;  it  therefore  perceives  from  the 
very  outset  the  duty,  according  to  its  power,  to 
provide  for  the  new-born  child."     The  children 
must,  therefore,  be  taken  at  the  earUest  possible 
age  into  the  care  of  the  State,  and  this  is  the 
Sociahst's  ideal.     All  means  of  education  and  in- 
struction, even  clothing  and  food,  will  be  supphed 
by   the   State.     The   Erfurt   platform   demands: 
"Secularization  of  the  schools.     Compulsory  at- 
tendance   at    the    pubHc    schools.     Instruction, 
use  of  all  means  of  instruction,  and  board  free  of 
charge  in  all  pubhc  elementary  schools  and  in 
the  higher  institutions  of  learning  for  such  pupils 
of  both  sexes  as,  on  account  of  their  talents,  are 
judged   fit   for   higher   studies."     The  American 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE    FAMILY  135 

Socialist  Party  platform  adopted  in  Chicago,  1904, 
advocates,  "education  of  all  children  up  to  the 
age  of  eighteen  years,  and  State  and  municipal 
aid  for  books,   clothing,   and  food." 

What  does  the  Socialist  propose  to  teach  the 
young  American?  Loyalty  to  country,  patriot- 
ism? Not  so.  Peruse  the  Socialist  Primer  by 
Nicholas  Klein,  and  sold  and  distributed  in  tens 
of  thousands,  and  ask  yourselves  what  type  of 
citizen  does  Socialism  undertake  to  train  and 
educate.  I  will  here  reproduce  one  lesson  out 
of  the  many  in  this  primer. 

LESSON   XXIV 

Here  is  a  man  with  a  gun ;  he  is  in  the  troop. 
You  see  he  has  a  nice  suit  on.  Does  he  work? 
No,  the  man  with  the  gun  does  no  work.  His  work 
is  to  shoot  men  who  do  work. 

Is  it  nice  to  shoot  men?  Would  you  like  to 
shoot  a  man? 

This  man  eats,  drinks,  wears  clothes,  but  he 
does  no  work.  Do  you  think  that  this  is  nice? 
Yes,  this  is  nice  for  the  Fat  Man,  but  bad  for  the 
Thin,  so  he  owns  the  man  with  the  gun.  When  the 
Thin  man  will  have  the  law  on  his  side,  there  will 
be  no  more  men  with  guns. 


136  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

"VMio  makes  the  gun  ?     The  man  who  works. 

^Mio  makes  the  nice  suit  ?  The  man  who 
works. 

"VMio  gets  shot  with  the  gun?  The  man  who 
works. 

\ATio  gets  the  bad  clothes?  The  man  who 
works. 

Is  this  right  ?     No,  this  is  WTong  ! 

The  man  who  works  should  have  good  clothes, 
and  all  that  is  good. 

The  man  with  the  gun  must  go  to  work,  too. 

War  must  come  to  an  end.  War  is  bad.  Peace 
is  good. 

Surely,  if  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Socialism,  and 
nobody  can  doubt  it,  then  C.  S.  Devas  is  right 
when  he  says:  "The  sacred  union  of  man  and 
woman  for  mutual  help,  for  educating  and  sup- 
porting their  children,  for  providing  for  their 
future  welfare,  the  sense  of  mutual  responsibility 
and  care,  the  true  and  healthy  communism,  that 
of  the  home,  the  countless  cooperative  associations 
which  each  family  forms,  the  thousand  ties  of 
dependence  that  are  occasion  for  the  display  of 
the  best  qualities  of  human  nature  —  this  realm 
of  self-devotion  and  self-sacrifice  —  all  this  be- 
comes unmeaning  and  impossible  where  the  social- 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE    FAMILY  137 

ist  State  provides  for  the  nourishment  and  edu- 
cation and  technical  training  and  material  and 
moral  outfit  of  each  child.  The  moral  office 
of  parents  is  gone,  the  sacred  enclosure  of  home 
is  violated,  the  sacred  words  father,  mother,  sis- 
ter, have  been  degraded  to  a  lower  meaning, 
and  the  next  step  is  to  reduce  the  rearing  of 
man  under  approved  physicians  and  physiologists 
and  the  latest  professors  of  eugenics,  to  the 
level  of  a  prize-cattle  farm.  The  Christian 
family  and  Collectivism  are  incompatible ;  their 
antagonism  is  so  rooted  that  reconciliation  is 
impossible." 

Marriage,  let  me  repeat,  is  a  divine  institution, 
raised  by  the  Founder  of  Christianity  to  the  dig- 
nity of  a  Sacrament.  Catholics  who  enter  this 
sacramental  state  of  life  should  do  so  only  after 
serious  and  sacred  thought,  and  when  strong  in 
their  resolve,  come  what  may,  to  remain  faithful 
each  to  each  not  till  fondness,  but  till  death,  do 
them  part. 

If  only  husbands  and  wives  were  a  little  less 
exacting,  if  only  they  made  more  allowance  for 
their  differences  in  tastes  and  in  heredity,  in  tem- 
perament and  in  character,  if  instead  of  expect- 
ing so  much  more  they  were  to  be  contented  with 
far  less  each  from  each ;    if,  in  a  word,  their  de- 


138  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

mands  upon  one  another's  lives  instead  of  being 
measured  by  what  each  wanted  from  the  other 
were  to  be  regulated  by  what  the  other  could 
give,  then  in  the  words  of  the  poet,  after  years 
of  happy  wedded  life  to  the  wife's  whisper, 

*'  More  years  have  made  me  love  thee  more," 

there  would  be  heard  the  husband's  firm  reply, 
"  There  is  none  I  love  like  thee." 

I  shall  perhaps  be  reminded  by  some  SociaUst 
that  Catholic  family  life  is  not  without  its  fail- 
ures, that  instances  numerous  enough  might  be 
cited  to  show  that  there  have  been,  and  are,  not 
a  few  serious  breakdowns  in  the  homes  of  families 
calling  themselves  CathoHc. 

Alas !  to  my  disappointment  and  shame,  I 
know  it  only  too  well.  But  a  thousand  in- 
stances of  infidehty,  coupled,  if  you  will,  with 
cruelty,  do  not  go  to  prove  that  the  Christian 
family,  as  such,  is  a  failure. 

If  you  insist  on  reminding  me  of  the  failures, 
I  must  tell  you  of  the  causes  that  have  led  up  to 
them.  The  Church  is  not  to  be  blamed  for  these 
lapses,  for  these  broken  vows.  It  is  not  her  mis- 
sion to  coerce  man  and  wife ;  she  could  not,  even 
if  she  would,  change  them  into  automatic  machin- 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   FAMILY  139 

ery.  She  knows  human  nature  far  too  intimately 
to  rely  upon  any  such  mechanical  process  for 
regulating  life.  She  will  remind  you  that  it  is 
not  the  Christian  family,  loyal  and  true  to  her, 
but  the  family  fallen  away  from  her  teaching, 
that  has  failed.  The  family  that  has  sold  its 
birthright,  the  family  that  has  betrayed  its  spir- 
itual mother,  the  family  that  has  forgotten  its 
Christian  origin,  —  that  is  the  family  which  is  the 
failure.  And  it  is  a  failure  because  of  its  lapse 
from  Catholic  teachers  and  Catholic  principle 
and  practice. 

The  French  Socialist  Le  Pay  and  his  school 
have  established  beyond  dispute  the  fact  that  the 
Christian  ideal  of  the  family,  as  set  up  by  the 
Church,  is  still  in  our  own  time  a  potent  influ- 
ence for  good.  Where  Christianity  is  strong 
there,  he  reminds  us,  family  life  too  is  strong. 
"Who,"  for  example,  asks  a  modern  writer, 
"has  not  heard  of  Ireland  and  how  there  a 
vast  population  have  in  virtue  of  their  religion 
and  by  docility  to  its  teaching  shown  a  shining 
example  of  Christian  family  Hfe,  sins  of  the  flesh 
scarcely  being  known  among  them,  and  reverence 
for  parents  and  dutiful  care  of  their  brethren 
being  universal." 

May  God   bless  Ireland    and    its   brave  sons 


140  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

and  pure  daughters  for  the  example  they  have 
set  in  this  matter  to  the  rest  of  the  Christian 
world. 

But  it  is  not  in  Catholic  Ireland  alone  that  the 
Christian  family  is  to  be  found  in  all  its  vigour, 
love,  and  beauty.  In  every  land  and  in  every 
section  of  a  Christian  community,  if  you  have 
eyes  to  see,  you  will  discover  lofty  and  holy  ex- 
amples of  Catholic  home  life  and  home  practices. 
How  often  have  I  not  heard  both  from  those  high 
up  and  those  low  down  the  social  ladder  ex- 
clamations such  as  this  :  ''Whatever  good  there  is 
in  me  I  owe  to  my  home."  Nay,  when  all  else 
has  failed  to  appeal  to  the  heartless  heart  of  some 
prodigal,  the  mere  mention  of  the  word  ''home" 
oftener  than  not  will  touch  some  hidden  spring 
in  his  soul,  and  he  will  sink  to  his  knees  broken 
and  contrite. 

It  is  a  gross  and  mischievous  exaggeration, 
therefore,  to  say,  as  many  Socialists  say,  that  the 
Christian  family  has  proved  a  failure.  Mr. 
Wells  tells  us  ("  New  Worlds  for  Old,"  p.  125)  that 
he  has  "very  grave  doubts  if  the  world  has  ever 
yet  held  a  high  percentage  of  good  homes."  I 
do  not  imply  for  an  instant  that  Mr.  Wells  seeks  to 
destroy  the  family.  On  the  contrary,  he  seeks  to 
raise  it  to  a  higher  level.    But  I  do  not  think  that 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   FAMILY  141 

he  understands  the  sound  elements  of  family  life 
that  are  to  be  found  amongst  us,  and  which  we 
must  make  use  of  if  we  are  to  effect  a  sound  and 
lasting  social  reform. 

Now  I  agree  entirely  with  Mr.  Wells  that  modern 
conditions  of  life,  especially  in  our  great  cities, 
are  seriously  prejudicial  to  the  integrity  of  family 
Hfe ;  so  prejudicial  as  to  constitute  a  disgrace  to 
our  civilization.  No  one  who  has  worked  among 
the  poor  can  fail  to  be  moved  by  the  appalling 
waste  of  human  life,  the  misery  and  squalor,  the 
dirt  and  the  disease,  the  absence  of  all  that  can 
be  called  home  for  many  of  our  brothers  and 
sisters.  The  spectacle  is  truly  appalling,  and 
every  man  and  woman,  with  a  particle  of  human 
sympathy  in  their  constitution,  must  absolutely 
lend  their  aid  in  remedying  this  hideous  condition 
of  affairs. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  people  should  grow 
impatient  of  palliatives  before  the  spectacle  of 
such  deep-rooted  misery.  It  is  not  astonishing 
that  they  should  welcome  Socialism,  which  claims 
to  be  the  only  means  of  setting  right  such  a  colos- 
sal wrong.  But  the  Catholic  Church,  with  her 
experience  so  wide  and  vast  and  long,  precisely 
because  she  loves  the  poor  will  not  countenance 
Socialism.     She  will  not  countenance  it  because 


142  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

she  knows,  better  than  any  man  or  any  body  of 
men,  how  himaan  nature  may  be  built  up,  how  the 
truest  welfare  of  a  people  may  be  secured.  She 
knows  the  toiling  poor  better  than  any  compiler 
of  blue  books  can  know  them.  She  knows  that 
the  regeneration  of  the  Christian  family  by  the 
Christian  spirit  must  be  the  basis  of  sound  social 
reform.  And  she  knows  that  Socialism,  despite 
the  disclaimers  and  good  intentions  of  some  of  its 
adherents,  does  really  constitute  an  attack  on  the 
Christian  family.  There  is  nothing  in  common 
between  the  SociaUsm  and  the  Catholic  house- 
hold. 

Divorce  is  bad  enough,  race  suicide  is  worse. 
We  read  in  ''Social  Adjustment,"  p.  153,  that 
"  instead  of  the  100,000,000  descendants  of  native- 
born  population  in  the  States  predicted  for  1900, 
there  were  but  41,000,000  in  existence.  The 
advent  of  the  other  59,000,000  was  prevented 
by  a  conscious  restriction  of  the  birth-rate." 
To  the  question  put  by  Democracy:  "How  can 
I  rise,  like  the  man  with  the  plug-hat  ?"  came  the 
answer  of  the  socialist  economist,  "Stop  having 
children."  "The  advice,"  Professor  Scott  an- 
swers triumphantly,  "was  followed.  The  family 
of  eight  is  replaced  by  the  family  of  two,  and 
thus  the  labourer  is  enabled  to  raise  his  stand- 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   FAMILY  143 

ard  of  life."  The  professor  continues  (pp.  159, 
160):  ''In  all  groups  of  modern  society  the  size  of 
the  family  is  being  restricted,  because  of  the  de- 
mand for  quality,  rather  than  quantity,  of  chil- 
dren." Again,  "The  amount  of  income  should 
determine  the  number  of  children." 

Once  more  :  "Wages  must  eventually  be  raised ; 
but  while  they  retain  their  present  relation  to 
prices  the  average  family  can  afford  no  more  than 
three  children.  In  every  trade  men  and  women 
are  recognizing  this  fact,  and  restricting  the  size  of 
their  families  accordingly."  This  iniquitous,  crim- 
inal state  of  things  from  the  Christian  point  of 
view,  the  professor  of  "WTiarton  School  regards  as 
"a  great  step  for\s'ard."  He  thinks  it  will  guar- 
antee, first,  that  no  child  will  be  brought  into  the 
world  who  cannot  be  properly  cared  for,  and  sec- 
ondly, that  all  children  brought  into  life  will  live 
joyous  and  useful  lives. 

Alas!  "not  on  bread  alone  doth  man  hve." 
Christians  recognize  that  hves  "joyous"  and 
''useful"  can  never  be  wTung  out  of  practices 
which  convert  married  Hfe  into  a  state  of  legal 
prostitution. 

Let  me  again  remind  you  that  one  main  reason 
of  the  Church's  condemnation  of  Sociahsm  is  that 
it  proposes  to  reorganize,  or  rather  to  disorganize, 


144  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

the  Christian  home  as  we  have  known  it  all  these 
ages.  SociaUsm,  if  we  study  it  ethically,  we  shall 
find  to  be  committed  to  a  set  of  ideas  about 
wedded  life  and  home  which  I  am  forced  to  de- 
scribe as  not  only  foreign,  but  as  repulsive  to  all 
of  us  who  have  been  trained  in  the  Old  Tradition, 
in  the  School  of  Christ.  • 

The  Socialist,  who  is  something  more  than  a 
mere  social  reformer,  cannot  well  avoid  attack- 
ing the  institution  of  the  family  as  we  know  it. 
It  is  bred  in  him  to  do  so,  because  it  is  an  essen- 
tial constituent  of  historical  Socialism.  This,  I 
shall  proceed  to  show,  is  no  gratuitous  asser- 
tion; it  is  borne  out  by  a  ''cloud  of  witnesses." 
Take  the  book  called  ''The  Origin  of  the  Family," 
and  referred  to  by  Sociahsts  as  "an  intellectual 
treat,"  a  "great  sociahst  classic."  In  this  work 
we  are  assured  that  "monogamy  was  not  founded  on 
nature,  but  on  economic  considerations ;  namely, 
the  victory  of  private  property  over  primitive 
and  natural  collectivism."  The  author  informs 
us  that  under  Sociahsm  marriage  will  no  longer 
be  indissoluble.  He  informs  us  that  marriage  is 
moral  only  so  long  as  love  lasts.  "The  duration," 
he  writes,  "of  an  attack  of  individual  sex-love 
varies  considerably  according  to  individual  dis- 
position, especially  in  men.    A  positive  cessation 


SOCL\LISM   AND   THE   FAMILY  145 

of  fondness,  or  its  replacement  by  a  new  passion- 
ate love,  makes  a  separation  a  blessing  for  both 
parties,  and  society."  No  passage  in  that  social- 
ist "classic"  can,  I  venture  to  say,  be  made  to 
fit  in  with  the  gospel  of  Christianity.  Again, 
take  the  SociaUst's  international  text-book  on  the 
woman  question.  ''Woman"  has  run  through 
more  than  fifty  editions  in  Germany  alone.  In 
it  are  passages  such  as  this :  ''The  satisfaction  of 
the  sexual  impulse  is  as  much  a  private  concern 
of  each  individual  as  the  satisfaction  of  any 
other  natural  impulse.  No  one  is  accountable 
to  any  one  else,  and  no  third  person  has  a  right 
to  interfere.  ...  If  between  man  and  woman 
who  have  entered  into  a  union  incompatibility, 
disappointment,  or  revulsion  should  appear,  mo- 
raUty  commands  a  dissolution  of  the  union  which 
has  become  unnatural,  and  therefore  immoral." 
This  "sociahst  classic,"  full  of  passages  such  as  I 
have  cited,  differs  in  every  fine  from  the  Gospel 
of  Christ,  as  all  the  world  can  see.  Once  more, 
in  a  work  written  by  "the  greatest  man  the  so- 
ciahst movement  has  yet  claimed  in  England  "  and 
entitled  "Socialism,  Its  Growth  and  Outcome," 
we  read  that  under  a  sociahstic  regime  "property 
in  children  would  cease  to  exist,  and  every  infant 
that  came  into  the  world  would  be  born  into  full 


146  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

citizenship  and  would  enjoy  all  its  advantages, 
whatever  the  conduct  of  its  parents  might  be. 
Thus  a  new  development  of  the  family  would 
take  place  on  the  basis,  not  of  a  predetermined, 
lifelong  business  arrangement,  to  be  formally  and 
nominally  held  to,  irrespective  of  circumstances, 
but  on  mental  inclination  and  affection,  an  asso- 
ciation terminable  at  the  will  of  either  party." 
This  teaching  requires  no  comment  from  me. 
Lastly,  we  are  told  in  "Socialism  —  Positive  and 
Negative,"  a  work  described  as  "brilhant,  fear- 
less, searching,"  that  "socialist  parties  do  not 
attack  Rehgion,  the  Family,  and  the  State,"  but 
the  "brilhant  author"  makes  a  point  of  reminding 
us  that  "SociaHst  Philosophy  proves  conclusively 
that  the  legislation  of  the  positive  pohtical  and 
economic  ideals  of  Socialism  involves  the  atro- 
phy of  Religion,  the  metamorphosis  of  the  Fam- 
ily, and  the  suicide  of  the  State,"  as  we  under- 
stand it.  This  quotation  speaks  for  itself.  My 
implacable  quarrel,  then,  with  Socialism  is  this  — 
that  in  its  recognized  classics,  in  its  propaganda, 
in  its  press,  and  in  its  unguarded  utterances,  it 
propounds  and  proclaims  a  gospel  about  wedded 
and  family  life  altogether  subversive  of  the 
teaching  of  Christianity.  No  sane  man  can  give 
himself   up   to   the   study   of   Socialism   without 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE   FAMILY  147 

coming  to  the  conclusion  that,  taken  as  an  ethi- 
cal and  as  an  economic  theory  of  hfe,  it  is  com- 
mitted to  doctrines  about  marriage  which  it  would 
seem  must  inevitably  destroy  the  home,  and  so 
undermine  the  State.  Socialism  is  founded  on  a 
philosophy  of  hfe  which  makes  the  indissolubil- 
ity of  marriage  ridiculous,  which  makes  race 
suicide  rational,  and  makes  children  the  property 
of  the  State. 

Needless  to  say,  I  shall  be  told  by  individual 
Socialists  that  I  have  entirely  misrepresented  the 
Socialist's  position  with  regard  to  marriage,  its 
rights  and  its  duties.  In  answer  to  this  charge 
let  me  say  that  I  have  uttered  nothing  but  what 
I  have  drawn  from  their  own  very  much  read 
and  very  highly  recommended  socialist  classics. 
Those  works  have  not  been  withdrawn.  They 
are  still  being  poured  forth  every  day  by  the 
socialist  press. 

Now,  I  do  not  wish  to  do  any  one  an  injustice. 
I  know  full  well  that  there  are  quite  a  number  of 
Socialists  who  repudiate  the  doctrine  I  have  enun- 
ciated, and  have  publicly  acknowledged  the  neces- 
sity for  maintaining  the  Christian  ideal  of  the 
family.  What  do  they  prove?  They  prove,  at 
most,  that  a  number  of  people  calling  themselves 
Socialists  believe  that  Socialism  would  not  preju- 


148  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

dice  the  family.  I  am  ready  to  give  them  credit 
for  being  perfectly  sincere  in  believing  this,  but 
I  am  not  prepared  to  believe  it  myself,  for  the 
evidence  is  against  them.  With  regard  to  this 
matter,  let  me  observe,  in  the  first  place,  these 
writers  who  claim  that  Socialism  will  not  preju- 
dice the  family  can  speak  only  for  themselves. 
They  can  only  mean  that  they  do  not  desire  to 
see  the  Christian  family  broken  up.  They  can- 
not speak  for  Sociahsm  as  a  whole.  They  cannot 
bind  their  fellow-Socialists,  for,  notice  well.  So- 
cialism, unlike  the  Catholic  Church,  has  no  living 
and  binding  authoritative  voice.  It  is  a  conglom- 
eration of  opinions,  of  sentiments,  of  activities, 
clustering  around  an  economic  proposal,  an  ille- 
gal scheme.  True,  there  are  groups  and  parties 
and  schools,  but  none  of  them  has  any  right  to 
say  to  the  others:  ''You  are  not  Socialists.  I  op- 
pose your  views."  On  the  contrary,  if  I,  as  a 
Cathohc  priest,  say  the  Cathohc  Church  forbids 
polygamy,  and  you  ask  me  for  my  authority,  I 
have  an  authority  to  which  I  can  turn  and  make 
appeal.  That  authority  will  come  down  heavily 
with  pains  and  penalties  on  me  or  any  other 
Catholic  priest  or  prelate  who  would  venture, 
would  dare,  to  advocate  polygamy  or  free  love 
union.     But  what  authority  can  Wells  or  Mac- 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE   FAIvlILY  149 

Donald  and  Company  invoke  in  order  to  make 
their  fellow-Socialists  accept  their  championship 
of  the  family  ?  The  Socialist  brought  up  on  Bax 
will  claim  to  be  quite  as  good  a  Socialist  as 
Wells,  and  the  followers  of  Morris  will  not  listen 
to  MacDonald,  and  in  the  event  of  a  socialist 
regime  they  will  endeavour  to  secure  such  legisla- 
tion on  the  subject  as  accords  with  their  own 
individual  views.  No  one  needs  to  doubt  whose 
views  in  the  long  run  would  prevail.  Let  there 
be  no  mistake  about  it.  It  is  the  family,  as  inter- 
preted by  Christianity,  which  actually  stands 
in  the  way  of  Socialism,  and  until  the  Christian 
family  is  disposed  of,  Socialism  realizes  that  it  can 
make  no  headway.  Like  the  National  Convention 
in  Paris,  Socialism  to-day  sees  no  hope  of  running 
up  its  red  flag  and  of  keeping  it  flying  so  long  as 
family  life  eludes  its  death  grip.  Until  the  Chris- 
tian marriage  becomes  changed  into  a  civil  con- 
tract, and  children  become  State  property,  Social- 
ism cannot  have  a  free  hand,  cannot  run  down 
the  Stars  and  Stripes  floating  over  the  White 
House. 

Socialists,  instead  of  finding  fault  with  me  for 
quoting  from  their  own  recognized  authorities, 
would  do  well  first  of  all  to  issue  an  expurgated 
edition  of  their  classics,  or  else  to  withdraw  them 


150  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

once  and  for  all  from  the  book  market,  repudi- 
ating as  unsocialistic  the  teachings  which  they 
unfold  and  propound.  Until  Socialism  shall  have 
shifted  its  centre  of  gravity  from  anti-Christian 
premises,  until  Socialists  shall  have  publicly  re- 
nounced the  philosophy  of  life  as  formulated  by 
the  founders  of  their  cult,  and  until  their  men  of 
light  and  leading  shall  have  made  it  clear  to  us 
that  Socialism  indorses,  upholds,  and  enforces  the 
time-honored  traditions  of  the  Christian  family 
and  the  Christian  home,  we  have  no  alternative 
but  to  denounce  Sociahsm  from  pulpit  and  plat- 
form, in  public  and  private,  as  a  most  insidious 
menace  to  the  State  which  must  rest  on  its  own 
God-given  foundation,  the  Home. 

I  have  done.  My  one  request  to  you  before 
I  leave  the  pulpit  is  that  you  will  steadily  bear 
in  mind  that,  if  Socialism  meant  nothing  more 
than  an  economic  system,  transferring  to  the 
State  all  railways,  telegraphs,  highroads,  gas 
plants,  fire  brigades,  and  such  like  ventures  and 
enterprises,  the  Church  neither  would  want  nor 
ought  to  interfere.  Sociahsm  would  then  be  no 
business  of  hers.  She  would  hold  her  peace. 
Why,  then,  does  she  stand  up  and  raise  her  voice 
denouncing  and  condemning  Sociahsm  as  a  men- 
ace to  the  family  ? 


SOCIALISM   AND   THE   FAJSIILY  151 

She  does  so  because  she  sees  that  SociaHsm, 
no  matter  what  it  may  propose  in  theory,  in 
practice  attempts  to  invade  the  home,  to  loosen 
wedded  ties,  to  usurp  parental  rights,  proclaiming 
to  man  and  wife  that  their  plighted  troth  to  be 
in  riches  and  in  poverty,  in  sickness  and  in  health, 
loyal  each  to  each,  has  a  civil  binding  force  only, 
and  that  the  tie  between  them  is  not  indissoluble. 
The  Catholic  Church,  as  the  Guardian  of  Faith, 
and  as  the  accredited  Teacher  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  would  be  untrue  to  her  divine  mission, 
if  after  studying  the  ethics  of  marriage  as  pro- 
pounded and  propagated  through  the  socialist 
schools  of  philosophy,  she  did  not  express  her 
mind  about  its  teachings  and  its  tendencies.  She 
has  done  so  in  language  about  which  there  can 
be  no  mistake.  Sovereign  pontiffs  have  declared 
that  till  Socialism  clears  itself  of  the  charge  of 
unorthodoxy  in  its  doctrine  and  philosophy  about 
married  life  and  home  duties,  no  true  son  of  the 
Church  may  identify  himself  with  Socialism. 

In  his  EncycHcal  dealing  with  this  subject,  Pope 
Leo  XIII,  after  reminding  the  faithful  that  ''the 
governing  principle  of  family  life  has,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  requirements  of  natural  law,  its 
basis  in  the  indissoluble  union  of  husband  and 
wife,   and   its   superstructure  in   the  duties  and 


152  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

rights  of  parents  and  children,"  goes  on  to  drive 
home  these  weighty  words  of  warning  which  I 
now  repeat  to  you.  *'You  are  aware,"  writes 
His  Holiness,  "  that  the  theories  of  Socialism  would 
quickly  destroy  this  family  life,  since  the  stabiUty 
afforded  by  marriage  under  religious  sanction 
once  lost,  parental  authority  over  children  and 
duties  of  children  to  parents  are  necessarily  and 
most  harmfully  slackened.  Socialists,"  the  Pope 
declares,  "in  setting  aside  the  parent  and  setting 
up  a  State  supervision,  act  against  natural  jus- 
tice and  break  into  pieces  the  stability  of  all 
family  Ufe." 

No  philosophy  of  life  which  is  in  contradiction 
with  the  natural  law,  and  which  breaks  into 
pieces  the  stability  of  the  family  can  be  made,  by 
any  possible  mental  process,  to  fit  in  with  the 
tenets  of  Christianity.  *'But,"  insists  the  Holy 
Father,  ''this  is  the  teaching  of  Socialism,"  and 
therefore  to  accept  the  philosophy  of  Socialism 
is  to  reject  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  The  two 
Schools  hold  views  about  marriage  ties  and  home 
duties  as  opposite  to  each  other  as  North  to 
South.  They  are  poles  apart.  And  all  hope  of 
bringing  them  together  vanishes  from  my  mind 
like  a  dream. 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION 

Not  many  weeks  ago  I  was  strolling  across  a 
common  on  the  outskirts  of  an  eastern  state 
city,  when  I  found  myself  drawn  to  the  fringe 
of  a  closely  packed  throng  of  men,  who,  with 
keenest  relish,  were  gulping  down  a  very  torrent 
of  invective  that  was  being  poured  upon  them  by 
a  tall,  gaunt  figure  standing  on  a  platform  in 
their  midst.  ''It  is  a  libel,  comrades,"  exclaimed 
the  orator;  "we  are  not  rough  on  rats  upon  re- 
ligion. Let  them  that  wants  it  have  it,  as  for  us 
it  is  not  the  churches  we  are  after,  but  the  land. 
We  have  no  use  for  any  clap-trap  mountain-gospel, 
with  its  blessings  on  those  who  invite  the  capita- 
list to  smite  them  on  both  cheeks  ;  nor  do  we 
believe  in  a  beatitude  which  promises  heaven  to 
any  craven  spirit  who  meekly  grinds  himself  to 
death  for  a  starvation  wage  in  a  sweatshop.  We 
have  done  with  all  such  stagnant  religion.  Our 
mission  is  to  create  wants  in  the  people  and  to 
force  capitalists  to  supply  them.  That  is  my  re- 
ligion, and  that  is  yours." 

153 


154  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

I  find  street-corner  Socialism  in  all  countries 
the  same.  What  I  hear  in  the  States,  I  have 
heard  in  Canada,  I  have  heard  in  France,  in  Bel- 
gium, in  Italy,  and  in  England. 

To-day  we  want  to  examine  dispassionately  but 
unsparingly  the  socialist  attitude  towards  religion. 
What  value  does  the  Socialism  which  is  alive  in 
the  street  and  in  the  press  set  upon  religion  ? 
How  does  it  regard  morality  and  religion,  those 
pillars  of  the  State,  "those  buttresses,"  as  Wash- 
ington called  them,  ''of  human  Hfe"?  I  am  not 
here  asking  whether  Socialism  as  a  mere  economic 
theory  is  bound  up  with  religion  or  irreligion,  but 
I  am  asking  whether  the  socialist  movement  in 
the  concrete,  as  a  going  concern,  ''as  a  philosophy 
of  human  progress,  as  a  theory  of  social  evolution, 
as  an  ethical  practice,"  is  or  is  not  an  irreligious 
movement,  and  in  particular  is  or  is  not  a  move- 
ment hostile  to  Christianity. 

To  estimate  it  aright,  we  must  judge  it  as  a 
whole.  We  must  take  a  general  view  of  its  ten- 
dencies, of  its  spirit,  of  its  so-called  ideals,  its 
aims  and  ambitions ;  we  must  by  no  means  do  it 
the  injustice  of  niistaking  the  personal  opinions 
of  its  members  for  the  spirit  generated  in  its  in- 
ception by  the  movement  itself,  and  inextricably 
bound  up  with  it. 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  155 

If,  then,  you  ask  me  what  is  the  spmt  that 
from  first  to  last  has  characterized  the  n\dng, 
energizing  thing  known  to  us  as  Socialism,  I 
have  no  hesitation  in  answering  that  it  is  a  spirit 
as  antagonistic  to  Christianity  as  darkness  is  to 
light.  Read  the  deliberate  utterances  of  its  found- 
ers and  of  its  leaders  in  every  land,  and  at  every 
stage  of  its  progress,  and  you  can  come  to  no  other 
conclusion  than  that  the  pioneers,  philosophers, 
and  representatives  of  thorough-going  Socialism 
have  proclaimed  that  between  Socialism  and  Re- 
ligion no  banns  can  be  published,  no  alliance  can 
be  recognized,  no  union  can  occur. 

Let  us  begin  with  Karl  Marx,  the  man  who, 
according  to  Ramsay  MacDonald,  taught  Social- 
ism its  own  real  meaning,  translated  its  feelings 
into  a  dogma,  and  discovered  its  legitimate  gene- 
sis. No  doubt,  I  shall  be  told  by  some  Socialists 
that  Marx  counts  as  a  ''back-number,"  that  he 
and  his  doctrine  are  dead  and  gone.  That  is  not 
true.  Marx  and  Engels  are  still  classical,  even 
here  in  the  New  World.  The  authoritj'-  and  in- 
fluence of  Marx  remains  to-day  undimmed  and 
undiminished.  The  victory  of  the  Marxists  at 
the  Amsterdam  Congress  gives  the  lie  to  the  mild 
utterances  of  my  objectors. 

We  are  then  concerned  to  know  how  did  Marx 


156  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

and  his  associates  regard  the  relations  of  SociaHsm 
to  Christianity.  We  are  told  by  so  respectable  an 
authority  as  H.  G.  Wells  that  the  Socialism  of 
Marx  and  Engels  was  ''strongly  anti-Christian  in 
tone."  Observe  well  that  he  does  not  state  that 
these  men  themselves,  apart  from  their  Socialism, 
were  anti-Christian  in  tone,  but  Wells  is  at  pains 
to  remind  us  that  their  hostility  to  Christianity 
was  bound  up  with  their  Socialism ;  that  in  the 
measure  in  which  they  were  Socialists  they  were 
antagonistic  to  Christianity. 

And,  indeed,  how  could  it  be  otherwise,  seeing 
that  Socialism  is  historically  based  upon  a  con- 
ception of  the  Universe  which  leaves  no  room  for 
religion?  It  is  built  up  upon  materialism,  and 
thoroughgoing  Socialists  are  proud  of  its  origin, 
and  are  trying  everywhere  to  inculcate  its  mate- 
rialistic principles. 

''It  is  incontrovertible,"  says  Bernstein,  "that 
the  most  important  part  in  the  foundation  of 
Marxism  is  its  specific  theory  of  history  which 
goes  by  the  name  of  the  materialistic  concep- 
tion of  history.  It  was  the  boast  of  Marx  that 
Socialism  would  deliver  men's  conscience  from 
what  he  called  the  'spectre  of  religion.'"  John 
Spargo  says:  "The  founders  of  modern  scien- 
tific Socialism  took  the  dogmas  of  Christianity 


SOCIALISM  AND   RELIGION  157 

at  that  time  and  held  them  up  to  intellectual 
scorn  —  a  task  by  no  means  arduous."  (Spargo, 
"Spiritual  Significance  of  Modern  Socialism," 
p.  86.) 

In  fact,  when  we  look  to  the  genesis  of  Social- 
ism, we  find  that  it  first  takes  shape  not  merely 
as  an  economic  method  of  curing  the  abuses  of 
Capitalism,  but  as  a  new  way  of  life,  a  shifting 
of  all  man's  hopes  and  aspirations.  It  is,  in  fact, 
offered  to  the  world  as  a  substitute  for  religion. 
Nay,  it  cannot  even  find  a  basis  on  which  to  stand 
except  on  the  ruins  of  Christianity,  whose  place 
it  hopes  fully  to  occupy,  whose  mission  it  promises 
more  than  to  fulfil. 

Marx  declared  that  the  abolition  of  religion  was 
a  necessary  condition  for  the  true  happiness  of  the 
people.  {Volksblatt,  l>^o.  2S1.)  In  his  criticism  of 
the  socialist  platform  he  calls  upon  the  labour 
party  to  declare  its  intention  "of  delivering  men's 
consciences  from  the  spectre  of  religion"  (p.  5G4). 

"  In  what  sense  Socialism  is  not  religion,"  writes 
Balfort  Bax  ("  Socialism  and  Religion  "),  "is  clear. 
It  utterly  despises  the  '  other  world '  with  all  its 
stage  properties  ....  The  Socialist  whose  '  social 
creed '  is  his  only  religion  requires  no  travesty  of 
Christian  rites  to  aid  him  in  keeping  his  ideal 
before  him." 


158  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

"We  have  simply  done  with  God,"  cries  Marx's 
henchman,  Engels.  "We  must  face  and  wipe 
out,"  shouts  another,  "those  two  curses,  the  curses 
of  Capitalism  and  Christianity.  Until  that  is 
done,  nothing  can  be  done,"  avows  Dr.  Aveling, 
the  "free"  husband  of  Marx's  daughter. 

I  will  not  weary  you  by  a  multiplication  of 
quotations.  Peruse  sociahstic  literature,  study  its 
so-called  classics,  and  you  will  arrive  at  one  con- 
clusion only,  that  between  Socialism  and  revealed 
religion  there  can  be  no  possible  modus  vivendi. 

Individual  Socialists  will  rise  up,  exclaiming : 
"Nous  avons  change  tout  cela."  Let  them  pro- 
test ;  they  do  not  count.  The  men  who  count  in 
this  movement  are  men  like  Bebel,  "one  of  the 
greatest  powers  of  Europe,"  Mr.  Hunter  calls 
him.  If  you  ask  this  leading  Socialist  how  Chris- 
tianity and  Socialism  are  corelated,  he  will  answer 
clearly  and  definitely  that  "Christianity  and 
Socialism  stand  toward  each  other  as  fire  and 
water."  I  want  you  to  observe  that  Bebel  is 
not  here  professing  only  his  own  disbelief  in 
Christianity;  on  the  contrary,  he  is  here  speak- 
ing on  behalf  of  Socialism  itself,  and  he  publicly 
proclaims  that  Socialism  in  its  nature  and  essence 
is  opposed  to  Christianity  as  fire  is  to  water. 
If  I  mistake  not,  in  the  Reichstag  he  went  further, 


SOCIALISM   AND    RELIGION  159 

declaring  before  the  assembled  House  that  m  re- 
ligion Socialists  profess  atheism. 

Is  Bebel  alone  ?  Does  he  stand  out  in  splen- 
did isolation  from  his  fellows  ?  No.  Liebknecht, 
whose  influence  is  only  little  short  of  Bebel's,  has 
proclaimed  from  the  housetops  that  the  duty  of  So- 
cialists as  Socialists  is  to  root  out  faith  in  God,  or, 
to  borrow  his  own  language,  he  tells  the  world  that 
no  one  is  worthy  of  the  name  of  Socialist  who  does 
not  consecrate  himself  to  the  spread  of  atheism. 

Schaffle  has  reminded  us  that  Social  Democracy 
has  ex-cathedra  avowed  atheism  to  be  its  religion. 
I  might  continue  quotations,  citing  leading  So- 
cialists on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  proving  up 
to  the  hilt  that  the  Socialism,  which  is  not  busy- 
ing itself  with  undermining  the  very  foundations 
of  all  belief  in  revealed  religion  and  a  personal 
God,  is  only  a  diluted  Socialism,  a  SociaHsm 
offered  to  novices.  It  is  not  the  genuine  thing, 
and  has  no  right  to  the  brand  labelled  ''Genuine 
Socialism."  I  shall  be  told,  of  course,  that  the 
more  modern  Socialism  has  cleared  itself  of  its 
anti-Christian  tendencies,  that  it  stands  neither 
for  nor  against  rehgious  principles.  In  answer 
to  these  assertions  let  me  refer  to  a  passage  from 
"  The  Comrade,"  New  York,  1903  :  — 

How  often  do  we  see  quoted  in  our  own  press 


i( 


160  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

that  familiar  fallacy  that  'the  ethics  of  Chris- 
tianity and  Socialism  are  identical.'  It  is  not  true. 
We  do  not  ourselves,  in  most  cases,  believe  it.  We 
repeat  it  because  it  appeals  to  the  slave-mind  of 
the  world  ....  Socialism  as  an  ethical  interpreta- 
tion of  life  is  far  removed  from  Christianity,  and 
is  of  infinitely  greater  beauty  and  worth." 

Let  us  turn  to  Ferri,  a  leading  Italian  Socialist, 
to  whose  indefatigable  propaganda  is  due  much  of 
the  socialist  organization  among  the  peasants  of 
Italy.  ''In  common  with  most  Marxian  Social- 
ists," writes  Mr.  Ramsay  Macdonald,  "Ferri  at- 
tacks religion  and  capitalism,  marriage  (as  we 
know  it)  and  private  property  in  the  means  of 
production  in  the  same  breath."  These  words 
occur  in  the  preface  to  a  translation  of  a  work  of 
Ferri's,  published  by  the  Independent  Labour  Party 
with  no  repudiation  of  his  blasphemies  from  which 
we  take  the  following  sentences  :  — 

"Socialism  .  .  .  tends  to  substitute  itself  for 
religion.  ...  It  knows  that  the  absence  or  les- 
sening of  the  belief  in  God  is  one  of  the  most 
powerful  factors  in  its  extension."  ("  Socialism  and 
Positive  Science,"  p.  49.) 

Similar  utterances  might  be  quoted  from  the 
writings  and  speeches  of  the  leading  Socialists  of 
Europe  and  America. 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  161 

The  anti-Christian  spirit  of  SociaHsm,  taking 
the  movement  as  a  whole,  has  also  been  pointed 
out  by  historical  and  scientific  students  of  the  sub- 
ject both  -wathin  and  without  the  socialist  camp. 

Thus  Professor  Karl  Pearson,  a  leading  English 
socialist  philosopher,  writes  as  follows  :  — 

'^Socialism  is  based  upon  a  conception  of  mo- 
rality differing  in  toto  from  the  current  Christian 
ideal,  which  it  does  not  hesitate  to  call  anti-social 
and  immoral.  .  .  .  The  modern  socialist  theory 
of  morality  is  based  upon  the  agnostic  treatment 
of  the  supra-sensuous  .  .  .  Can  a  greater  gulf  be 
imagined  than  really  exists  between  current  Chris- 
tianity and  the  socialistic  code?"  ("The  Ethic  of 
Free  Thought,"  pp.  318,  319.) 

''Modern  Socialism,"  wrote  Henry  George,  "is 
without  religion,  and  its  tendency  is  atheistic." 
("  Science  of  Political  Economy,"  p.  198.) 

''SociaUsmof  the  present  day,"  saj^s  Professor 
Schaeffel,  *'is  thoroughly  irreligious  and  hostile  to 
the  Church.  It  says  that  the  Church  is  only  a 
police  institution  for  upholding  Capital,  and  that 
it  deceives  the  common  people  with  a  'check 
payable  in  heaven'  that  the  Church  deserves  to 
perish."     {"  Quintessence  of  Socialism,"  p.  116.) 

The  Berlin  Vorwarts  reminds  its  readers  that 
we  believe  in  no  Redeemer,  but  we  believe  in  re- 


162  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

demption.  No  man,  no  God  in  human  form,  no 
Saviom',  can  redeem  humanity.  Only  humanity 
itself,  only  labouring  humanity,  can  save  humanity. 

For  Pentecost,  1893,  the  same  paper  informed 
its  readers  that  ''Socialism  is  a  new  doctrine  and 
proclaims  the  joyful  gospel  of  redemption,  but  not 
of  redemption  through  a.Messias." 

The  New  York  Volkszeitung  speaks  much  on 
the  same  lines  :  "We  do  not  believe,"  it  writes,  ''in 
the  Saviour  of  the  Christians.  Our  saviour  will 
come  in  the  shape  of  the  world-redeeming  principle 
of  Socialism."  (Quoted  by  Cathrein,  "Socialism," 
p.  221.)  Blatchford  is  at  pains  to  tell  us  :  "That 
the  whole  of  this  old  Christian  doctrine  is  a  mass 
of  error.  There  was  no  Creator.  There  was  no 
Fall.  There  was  no  Atonement."  ("  God  and  My 
Neighbor,"  p.  125.)  In  the  Vorwarts,  1901,  Bebel 
does  not  hesitate  to  say:  "Christianity  is  the 
enemy  of  liberty  and  civilization.  It  has  kept 
mankind  in  slavery  and  oppression."  "Chris- 
tianity and  tyranny,"  according  to  the  teaching  of 
the  "Comrade"  (New  York,  1903),  "are,  and  for 
ages  have  been,  firmly  allied.  .  .  .  There  is  no 
wrong  which  has  not  been  justified  by  Christianity. 
Its  very  basis  is  a  lie,  and  a  denial  of  the  basic 
principle  of  Socialism."  Again,  of  Christianity, 
G.  S.  Herrons,  who  is,  or  was,  representative  of 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  163 

American  Socialism  in  the  International  Bureau, 
says:  "It  is  a  huge  and  ghastly  parasite.  .  .  . 
The  spiritual  deliverance  of  the  race  depends  on 
its  escape  from  the  parasite."  Once  more  Bax 
contends  that :  ''It  is  useless  blinking  the  fact  that 
this  Christian  doctrine  is  more  revolting  to  the 
higher  moral  sense  of  to-day  than  the  Saturnalia, 
or  the  cult  of  Proserpine  could  have  been  to  the 
conscience  of  the  early  Christians."  ("Ethics  of 
Socialism,"  p.  250.)  The  Sozial  Demokrat  sums 
up  the  situation  by  saying:  ''Christianity  is  the 
greatest  enemy  of  Socialism.  When  God  is  ex- 
pelled from  human  brains,  what  is  called  Divine 
Grace  will  at  the  same  time  be  banished ;  and  when 
the  heaven  above  appears  nothing  more  than  an 
immense  falsehood,  men  will  seek  to  create  for 
themselves  a  heaven  below."  (It  will  be  a  second 
Babel.) 

So  you  see  if  we  turn  from  the  acknowledged 
leaders  and  students  of  Socialism,  we  find  the  anti- 
Christian  spirit  rampant.  We  find  resolutions 
passed,  threatening  with  expulsion  any  comrade 
who  supports  positive  religion  (Madrid,  Septem- 
ber, 1892),  and  declaring  Socialism  to  be  directly 
contradictory  to  the  immutable  dogmas  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  "Christianity,"  says  the  Sozial 
Demokrat,    the    official    organ    of    the    German 


164  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Socialist,  ''is  the  bitterest  foe  of  the  Social 
Democracy"  (May  25,  1880). 

Of  the  blasphemous  parodies  of  the  most  sacred 
Christian  institutions  to  be  found  in  such  socialist 
papers  as  the  Berlin  Vorwaris  (circulation  120,000) 
or  the  Wahre  Jakob  (circulation  230,000)  or  the 
Itahan  Asino,  I  need  not  speak.  They  are  beyond 
measure  revolting.  Yet  they  are  no  mere  ex- 
hibitions of  personal  anti-religious  prejudice. 
They  are  put  forward  in  the  name  of  Socialism, 
and  we  find  them  encouraged  and  supported  by 
socialist  leaders.  There  is  no  getting  away  from 
the  fact  that  Socialism  as  a  going  concern  is  es- 
sentially anti-Christian. 

Let  me  repeat  it :  I  am  not  asking  whether 
Socialism,  as  a  bare  economic  theory,  is  or  is  not 
incompatible  with  Christianity :  nor  am  I  asking 
whether  individual  Socialists  are  or  are  not  anti- 
Christian  :  I  am  asking  whether  the  actual  move- 
ment called  Socialism  is  or  is  not  deeply  imbued 
with  an  essentially  anti-Christian  spirit.  The 
above  instances  are  but  a  few  out  of  a  host  which 
might  be  cited.  But  they  may  suffice  for  our 
purpose.  It  is  impossible  in  a  single  Conference 
to  cite  as  many  witnesses  as  I  should  like. 

It  would  seem,  then,  to  be  no  mere  accident 
that  gives  this  materialistic  colour  to  the  products 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  165 

of  socialistic  platform  and  press.  Hostility  to 
Christianity  is  no  sporadic  growth  in  Socialism.  It 
is,  as  I  have  said,  of  the  very  stuff  and  substance 
of  the  actual  movement.  For  Socialism  pre- 
sents itself  to  us  throughout  its  course,  not  merely 
as  an  economic  system  to  be  adopted  on  its  merits 
and  subordinated  to  higher  ideals,  but  as  a  new 
way  of  life,  readjusting  our  beliefs  in  every  direc- 
tion. It  claims  and  has  ever  claimed  to  fill  the  en- 
tire canvas  of  life,  to  absorb  all  man's  energies,  to 
serve  not  merely  as  partial  means,  but  as  his  en- 
tire end.  Socialism  would  dominate  every  depart- 
ment of  human  activity.  Socialists  will  not  toler- 
ate the  organized  religion  founded  by  Christ.  Nor 
is  there  any  wide  difference  in  this  respect  between 
the  old  Socialism  and  the  new.  What  Marx  and 
Engels  bluntly  declare,  Bebel  and  Liebknecht, 
Ferri  and  Guesde,  as  bluntly  reiterate  —  that  they 
have  done  with  Christianity. 

Yet  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells  persists  in  thinking  that 
the  Catholic  Church  has  fallen  into  the  stupid 
mistake  of  confusing  the  private  anti-religious  ut- 
terances of  particular  Socialists  with  the  socialist 
movement  itself.  He  speaks  of  the  ''lamentable 
association  of  two  entirely  separate  thought  pro- 
cesses, one  constructive  socially  and  the  other  de- 
structive intellectually."    ("  New  Worlds  for  Old," 


166  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

p.  198.)  Similarly  Mr.  Bruce  Glasier,  the  editor 
of  the  Labour  Leader,  has  been  triumphantly 
citing  the  cases  of  Liberals  and  Tories  who  have 
been  irreligious  or  immoral.  Such  people  are 
found  in  the  ranks  of  every  association,  he  urges. 
Why,  then,  saddle  Socialism  with  their  anti- 
religious  or  immoral  words  and  actions  ? 

The  Catholic  Church  has  made  no  such  foolish 
mistake  as  is  here  attributed  to  her.  She  has  not 
taken  the  measure  of  Socialism  from  speeches  and 
conduct  for  which  Socialism  is  not  responsible, 
any  more  than  she  has  taken  the  measure  of 
Socialism  from  the  suggestive  and  entertaining 
volumes  of  Mr.  Wells,  or  the  valuable  economic 
writings  of  Mr.  Webb.  She  does  not  judge  of 
the  movement  by  what  Mr.  Belfort  Bax  says  any 
more  than  she  judges  of  it  by  what  Mr.  Stewart 
Headlam  says.  She  measures  the  movement  in 
its  entirety,  noting  its  essential  features,  observing 
its  basic  suppositions,  investigating  its  inner 
spirit.  She  estimates  how  far  its  hostility  to 
Christianity  proceeds  from  its  very  constitution 
and  how  far  it  is  due  to  ''an  entirely  separate 
thought  process."  And  she  declares  without  pas- 
sion, but  without  hesitation,  that  the  actual  move- 
ment called  Socialism  is  prejudicial  to  man's 
spiritual  welfare,  and  that  the  danger  has  not 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  167 

ceased  to  exist  even  though  the  blunt  anti-Chris- 
tian utterances  of  the  more  outspoken  have  in 
some  quarters  been  modified  to  an  assurance  that 
to  SociaUsm  ''rehgion  is  a  private  concern." 
What  that  assurance  is  worth  Father  Joseph 
Husslein  has  proved.  (See  his  last  work, ' '  Sociahsm 
and  Social  Problems.") 

I  read  only  the  other  day  in  a  leading  maga- 
zine that  the  "old  Religion  being  vitally  con- 
nected with  the  old  moraUty,  men  have  distinctly 
broken  with  it  altogether;  that  the  only  ethics 
worth  considering  are  the  ethics  which  lay  stress 
on  social  reform,  and  that  Christianity  no  more 
fits  our  times  than  snow-storms  fit  the  heat  of 
summer." 

In  his  "  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice"  Hill- 
quit  says :  "Without  fear  of  serious  contradiction  we 
may  define  ethics  as  the  science  or  art  of  '  right ' 
individual  conduct  of  men  towards  their  fellow- 
men."  After  reviewing  Theological,  Juridical,  In- 
tuitional, Idealist,  Utilitarian  doctrines  on  the 
subject  of  ethics,  of  right  and  wrong,  Morris  Hill- 
quit  goes  on  to  offer  his  socialist  views  of  the 
"Evolution  of  the  Moral  Sense,"  and  he  arrives  at 
the  conviction  that :  "The  moral  sense  is  a  prod- 
uct of  the  process  of  evolution  of  man,  gained  in 
his  early  struggle  foi-  existence,  precisely  in  the 


168  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

same  manner  as  his  intellectual  qualities.  It  is 
a  property  of  man  in  a  state  of  society  just  as  much 
as  any  of  his  physical  organs,  or  as  Mr.  Bax  puts 
it,  'the  ethical  sentiment  is  the  correlate  in  the 
ideal  sphere,  of  the  fact  of  social  existence  itself 
in  the  material  sphere.'  The  one  is  necessarily 
implied  in  the  other,  as  the  man  is  implied  in 
his  shadow." 

He  goes  on  to  ask:  ''What,  then,  is  the  true 
standard  of  morality  applicable  to  modern 
society?" 

He  proceeds  to  cite  La  Monte  ("Socialism,  Posi- 
tive and  Negative,"  Chicago,  1907,  pp.  60,  61), 
and  writes :  — 

"'Ethics,'  says  Mr.  La  Monte  rather  forcibly, 
'simply  registers  the  decrees  by  which  the  ruling 
class  stamps  with  approval  or  brands  with  cen- 
sure human  conduct  solely  with  reference  to  the 
effect  of  that  conduct  on  the  welfare  of  their  class. 
This  does  not  mean  that  any  ruling  class  has  ever 
had  the  wit  to  devise  ab- initio  a  code  of  ethics 
perfectly  adapted  to  further  their  interests.  Far 
from  it.  The  process  has  seldom,  if  ever,  been  a 
conscious  one.  Bj'^  a  process  akin  to  natural 
selection  in  the  organic  world,  the  ruling  class 
learns  by  experience  what  conduct  is  helpful  and 
what  hurtful  to  it,  and  blesses  in  the  one  case  and 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  169 

damns  in  the  other.  And  as  the  ruling  class  has 
always  controlled  all  the  avenues  by  which  ideas 
reach  the  so-called  lower  classes,  they  have  hereto- 
fore been  able  to  impose  upon  the  subject  classes 
just  those  morals  which  were  best  adapted  to 
prolong  their  subjection.' " 

Again,  a  little  further  on,  Hillquit  says:  "The 
struggles  between  the  bourgeoisie,  the  progenitors 
of  the  modern  capitalist  class,  and  the  ruling  class 
of  landowners,  have  yielded  many  valuable  ac- 
quisitions to  modern  civilization,  and  have  re- 
sulted in  the  establishment  of  modern  society, 
which  with  all  its  faults  and  imperfections  is 
vastly  superior  to  the  feudal  order  which  it  dis- 
placed. The  struggles  of  the  dependent  classes 
against  the  ruling  classes  in  modern  society  have 
already  produced  the  rudiments  of  a  nobler  social 
morality,  and  are  rapidly  preparing  the  ground  for 
a  still  higher  order  of  civilization. 

"The  modern  working  class  is  gradually  but 
rapidly  emancipating  itself  from  the  special  mo- 
rality of  the  ruling  classes.  In  their  common  strug- 
gles against  the  oppression  of  the  capitalist  class 
the  workers  are  naturally  led  to  the  recognition 
of  the  value  of  compact  organization  and  solidary, 
harmonious  action.  Within  their  own  ranks  they 
have  no  motive  for  struggle  or  competition  ;  their 


170  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

interests  are  in  the  opposite  direction.  And  as 
the  struggles  of  their  class  against  the  rule  of 
capitalism  become  more  general  and  concrete, 
more  conscious  and  effective,  there  grows  in  them 
a  sentiment  of  class  loyalty,  class  solidarity,  and 
class  consciousness  which  is  the  basis  of  a  new  and 
distinct  code  of  ethics.  The  modern  labour  move- 
ment is  maturing  its  own  standards  of  right  and 
wrong  conduct,  its  own  social  ideals  and  morality. 
Good  or  bad  conduct  has  largely  come  to  mean  to 
them  conduct  conducive  to  the  welfare  and  success 
of  their  class  in  its  struggles  for  emancipation. 
They  admire  the  true,  militant,  and  devoted  '  labour 
leader,'  the  hero  in  their  struggles  against  the 
employing  class.  They  detest  the  'scab,'  the 
deserter  from  their  ranks  in  these  struggles." 

Here,  for  a  moment,  let  me  draw  your  atten- 
tion to  some  extracts  from  ''Socialism  v.  Religion," 
which  tell  us  how  the  comrade  class  detests  religion 
no  less. 

"  As  part  of  the  essential  educational  work  that 
must  be  done  before  this  emancipation  can  be 
achieved  the  present  pamphlet  has  its  place. 
It  is  an  entirely  proletarian  product,  and  treats 
a  serious  subject  seriously  and  scientifically.  It 
is  issued,  not  as  the  view  of  an  individual,  but 
as  the  accepted  manifesto  of  the  Socialist  Party 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  171 

on  the  subject;  and  agreement  with  it  and  the 
general  position  of  the  Party  entails  upon  every 
member  of  the  worldng  class  the  duty  of  joining 
the  SociaUst  Party  of  Great  Britain  and  helping 
forward  its  work." — The  Executive  Committee 
OF  THE  Socialist  Party  of  Great  Britain. 
January,  1911. 

In  this  official  pamphlet  the  question  at  the 
outset  is  asked  :  — 

"Is  SociaUsm  antagonistic  to  religion?  Can  a 
Socialist  be  a  Christian?"  and  then  it  goes  on  to 
say  that  "  an  explanation  of  the  Socialist  position 
on  this  question  is  the  more  urgent  now,  because 
the  hypocritical  and  time-serving  procedure  of 
so  many  professed  Socialists  has  enabled  those 
who  are  frankly  our  opponents  to  keep  the  anti- 
religious  aspect  of  Socialism  effectively  to  the  fore. 
Politicians  angling  for  votes  and  office,  and  or- 
ganizations scheming  for  members  and  sub- 
scriptions, have  almost  all  evaded  the  charge  that 
Socialism  implies  atheism  and  materialism,  by  pre- 
tending that  reUgion  is  in  no  way  related  to  the 
question  of  Socialism." 

According  to  the  teaching  of  S.  P.  G.  B.,  reli- 
gion is  the  outcome  of  social  ideas  and  economic 
conditions.  We  are  told  that  "God  did  not  create 
man,  man  created  God  in  his  own  image." 


172  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Contrary  to  all  reading  of  history  the  Socialist 
Party  of  Great  Britain  would  have  us  beUeve  that 
''Christianity,  indeed,  is  a  cemetery  of  dead  reli- 
gions. ...  It  is  the  systematization  and  adap- 
tation of  ancient  beliefs  in  accord  with  the  new 
social  principle"  which  came  in  with  the  fall  of 
the  Roman  Empire.  The  only  reason  why  the 
older  reUgions  gave  way  before  Christianity  was 
that  they  ceased  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  eco- 
nomic conditions  and  social  order  of  a  later  date. 

"  The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  which  suited 
feudal  times,  in  turn  became  undermined  by  a 
set  of  new  economic  forces  with  Protestantism  as 
the  result." 

"In  the  light  of  historical  facts,"  says  this 
pamphlet,  ''SociaUsm  v.  Rehgion,"  "it  is  clear 
that  religion  has  evolved  continuously  under  the 
pressure  of  natural  causes,  and  in  this  it  does  not 
differ  from  all  other  things ;  but  a  distinct  charac- 
teristic is  exhibited  by  religion's  modern  phase. 
In  contrast  with  science,  which  grows  in  volume, 
complexity,  interdependence,  and  definiteness,  re- 
ligion decreases  in  volume,  cohesion,  and  definite- 
ness, and  is  now  in  process  of  evolution  —  if  such 
it  can  truly  be  called  —  into  nothingness.  It  is, 
in  fact,  more  accurately  an  evaporation  than  an 
evolution.  ..." 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  173 


(I- 


'It  gives  point,  moreover,  to  the  truth  uttered 
by  Naquet  that :  whenever  knowledge  takes  a 
step  forward  God  takes  a  step  backward." 

"It  is  therefore  a  profound  truth,"  continues  this 
sociaUst  classic,  "that  Socialism  is  the  natural 
enemy  of  religion;"  and  it  is  the  writer's  proud 
boast  that  "the  entry  of  Socialism  is,  consequently, 
the  exodus  of  religion.  .  .  .  Socialism  as  a 
system  of  society  means  the  end  of  supernatural 
beliefs." 

Socialism,  we  must  not  forget,  is  based  on  pure 
monism,  whereas,  "  all  religious  teaching, "  as  the 
pamphlet  before  us  points  out,  "is  directly  opposed 
to  the  scientific  materialism,  or  monism,  which  is 
an  integral  part  of  socialist  philosophy." 

We  are  again  and  again  reminded  that,  "the 
materialist  concept  is  the  socialist  key  to  history," 
and  being  directly  antagonistic  to  all  religious 
philosophy,  it  is  destined,  so  we  are  assured, 
"to  drive  this  philosophy  and  all  its  superstitions 
from  their  last  ditch." 

We  are  furthermore  told  in  this  declaration  of 
the  principles  of  the  Socialist  Party  in  Great 
Britain  that:  "If  a  man  supports  the  Church,  or 
in  any  respect  allows  religious  ideas  to  stand  in  the 
way  of  the  principles  of  Socialism  or  the  activity 
of  the  Party,  he  proves  thereby  that  he  docs  not 


174  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

accept  Socialism  as  fundamentally  true  and  of  the 
first  importance,  and  his  place  is  outside.  No  man 
can  be  consistently  both  a  socialist  and  a  Christian. 
It  must  be  either  the  socialist  or  the  religious  prin- 
ciple that  is  supreme,  for  the  attempt  to  couple 
them  equally  betrays  charlatanism  or  lack  of 
thought.  There  is,  therefore,  no  need  for  a  spe- 
cifically anti-religious  test.  So  surely  does  the 
acceptance  of  Socialism  lead  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  supernatural,  that  the  Socialist  has  little  need 
for  such  terms  as  Atheist,  Free-thinker,  or  even 
Materialist ;  for  the  word  Socialist,  rightly  under- 
stood, implies  one  who  on  all  such  questions  takes 
his  stand  on  positive  science,  explaining  all  things 
by  purely  natural  causation ;  Socialism  being  not 
merely  a  politico-economic  creed,  but  also  an 
integral  part  of  a  consistent  world  philosophy." 

With  very  good  reason  does  the  compiler  of  this 
party  pamphlet  close  his  work  by  once  more 
assuring  his  readers  that :  "Our  question  is  there- 
fore answered.  Socialism,  both  as  a  philosophy 
and  as  a  form  of  society,  is  the  antithesis  of 
religion." 

I  have  quoted  at  length  from  this  manifesto  about 
Socialism  and  Religion,  recently  put  forth  by  the 
S.  P.  G.  B.,  because  I  want  you  now  hstening  to 
me  to  recognize  what  is  the  real,  uncompromis- 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  175 

ing  attitude  of  the  dyed-in-the-wool  Socialist 
towards  religion  —  more  especially  towards  all 
revealed  religion. 

After  indorsing  the  utterances  I  have  put  before 
you,  well  may  thoroughgoing  Socialists  throw 
ridicule  upon  all  such  sayings  as,  ''Socialism has 
no  more  to  do  with  a  man's  religion  than  it  has 
with  the  colour  of  his  hair"  (J.  Ramsay  Mac- 
Donald,  "Socialism,"  p.  101),  and  ''I  first  learned 
my  Socialism  in  the  New  Testament,  where  I  still 
find  my  chief  inspiration"  (Keir  Hardie,  1900, 
Merthyr  boroughs). 

In  spite  of  Keir  Hardie's  profession  of  faith, 
modern  Socialists  proclaim  throughout  their  multi- 
tudinous press  and  in  their  heated  harangues  that 
they  beheve  in  no  Redeemer,  but  that  they  be- 
lieve in  Redemption  ;  that  no  man,  no  Saviour,  no 
God  in  human  form,  can  redeem  the  humanity  of 
the  day ;  that  there  is  only  one  way  of  redeeming 
humanity  —  that  humanity  itself  by  labouring  for 
humanity  is  to  save  humanity. 

Again,  are  we  not  told  that  it  is  SociaUsm  which 
preaches  the  gospel  of  redemption,  but  not  of 
redemption  through  the  Messiah,  but  through  the 
work  of  socialistic  principles  ?  Once  more,  we  are 
assured  that  the  true  Saviour  has  not  come  yet, 
but  when  he  does  come  he  will  come  in  the  shape 


176  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

of  the  world-redeeming  principle  of  Socialism.  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  always  and  everywhere, 
at  home  and  abroad,  you  will  find  the  popular 
socialist  leader  crying  out  before  a  group  of  his 
fellow-believers:  "Away  with  this  cant  of  clergy, 
this  gospel  about  starlands,  this  wait-till-the-next- 
world  kind  of  religion.  We  want  no  Christ,  with 
His  miracles  of  loaves  and  fishes  in  a  day  gone  by ; 
what  we  want  and  what  we  intend  to  have  is  our 
share  of  this  world's  goods,  here  and  now.  We 
ask  for  no  draft  upon  the  bank  of  Heaven.  Our 
Heaven  is  here  and  we  will  have  it,  we  will  no 
longer  be  fooled  out  of  it  by  the  capitalist."  Not 
only  will  Socialism  have  nothing  to  do  with  re- 
vealed religion,  but  with  Schaffle  I  am  disposed 
to  believe  that  even  social  Democracy  would  per- 
mit no  freedom  to  religion  and  religious  fife.  A 
socialist  State  would,  of  necessity,  be  far  more 
intolerant  than  any  existing  State.  The  Paris 
Commune  has  not  faded  from  our  memory. 

Liebknecht,  who  discovered  that  direct  attack 
on  religion  was  a  bad  political  move,  declared  at 
the  Halle  Congress  that  :  "Instead  of  squandering 
our  strength  in  a  struggle  with  the  Church  and 
Sacerdotalism,  let  us  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter. 
We  desire  to  overthrow  the  State  of  the  classes. 
When  we  have  done  that  the  Church  and  Sacerdo- 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  177 

talism  will  fall  with  it,  and  in  this  respect  we  are 
much  more  radical  and  much  more  definite  in  pur- 
pose than  our  opponents,  for  we  like  neither  the 
priests  nor  the  anti-priests."  "  Religion,"  writes 
Bebel  ("  Woman  "),  "  will  disappear  by  itself,  with- 
out any  violent  attack." 

But  I  cannot  close  the  list  without  adding  the 
testimony  of  a  well-known  American  socialist 
writer,  possibly  the  best  equipped  man  in  America 
to  speak  for  his  comrades  and  help  them  out  of 
a  difficulty.  John  Spargo  in  his  book,  "The 
Spiritual  Significance  of  Modern  Socialism,"  p.  88, 
tells  us  that  the  association  of  Socialism  with 
atheism  was  an  accidental  result  of  the  confluence 
of  two  streams  of  nineteenth-century  thought. 
He  excuses  the  founders  of  Socialism  for  attack- 
ing a  Christianity  which  they  thought  was  static, 
fixed,  and  resting  on  immutable  dogmas.  But  he 
then  informs  us  that  all  this  has  changed,  that 
we  have  now  discovered  that  Religion  is  a  thing 
that  is  ever  changing,  and  that  the  form  of  Chris- 
tianity is  undergoing  its  mutation  through  "the 
centuries  of  growth  and  intellectual  progress." 
With  him  Christianity  is  a  stage  only  in  the  pro- 
cess of  soul  evolution. 

Christianity  is  to-day  just  what  it  was  when  re- 
jected by  the  founders  of  Socialism.     Modern  dis- 

N 


178  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

CO  very  has  left  its  dogmas  just  where  they  were 
two  centuries  ago.  The  founders  of  Sociahsm 
knew  what  real  Christianity  meant,  and  they  made 
no  mistake  in  singhng  it  out  as  their  most  dreaded 
enemy.  John  Spargo  may  be  right  in  telling  us 
that  Socialism  will  fit  in  with  the  new  Christianity, 
with  the  Christianity  of  the  evolutionist  and  the 
modernist,  with  the  Christianity  that  will  exist 
when  dogma  is  done  away  with,  and  which  may  be 
found  outside  the  Catholic  Church,  possibly  a 
hundred  years  from  now.  What  kind  of  Chris- 
tianity this  will  be  we  do  not  now  care  to  say. 
But  of  this  we  are  sure,  that  Socialism  does  not 
fit  in  with  the  old  Christianity,  with  the  Chris- 
tianity which,  like  Christ,  is  ever  the  same ;  with 
the  Christianity  for  which  the  martyrs  shed  their 
blood,  and  for  which  millions  of  Christians  would 
gladly  and  proudly  shed  their  blood  to-day.  How 
many,  I  ask,  would  shed  their  blood  for  the  new 
Christianity  which  is  put  forward  as  the  slave  of 
time  and  change,  and  lays  aside  its  dogmas  just  as  a 
man  does  his  winter  garments,  and  which,  under 
the  guidance  of  men  like  John  Spargo,  puts  in  the 
same  category  of  great  men  Karl  Marx,  Martin 
Luther,  and  Jesus  Christ  ?  With  this  shifting  kind 
of  Christianity  we  are  not  concerned  at  present. 
But  we  are  concerned  with  the  socialist  movement. 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  179 

We  say  the  Catholic  Church  measures  this 
movement  in  its  essential  features,  observing  its 
basic  suppositions,  investigating  its  inner  spirit, 
analyzing  its  plausible  but  fallacious  explanations. 
The  Church  of  Christ  has  her  hand  upon  its  pulse, 
she  has  taken  its  temperature,  she  has  diagnosed 
its  condition,  and  she  declares  without  passion, 
but  without  hesitation,  that  the  actual  living  thing 
called  Socialism  is  prejudicial  to  man's  spiritual 
welfare,  and  that  the  danger  has  not  ceased  to  exist 
even  though  the  blunt  anti-Christian  utterances 
of  the  more  outspoken  Socialists  have,  in  some 
quarters,  been  modified  to  an  assurance  that  to 
Socialism  "religion  is  nothing  more  than  a  pri- 
vate concern."  What  is  this  assurance  worth 
when  weighed  in  the  balance  of  facts  ?  It  is  not 
worth  the  paper  on  which  it  is  stated. 

I  do  not  deny  that  there  may  be  a  few  Catholics, 
especially  in  Europe,  who  are  in  an  honest  state 
of  doubt  as  to  whether  the  Church's  denunciation 
of  Socialism  extends  to  certain  milder  forms  of 
that  doctrine  which  are  sometimes  to  be  found,  and 
which  claim  to  be  merely  economic  and  constitu- 
tional methods  of  curing  evils  which  all  of  us  admit 
to  be  intolerable.  But  a  wider  view  of  the  matter 
will,  we  doubt  not,  enlighten  them  as  to  the  real 
questions  at  issue.    They  will  come,  let  us  sincerely 


180  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

hope,  to  see  the  danger  of  taking  even  an  indirect 
part  in  a  movement  which  is  characteristically 
opposed  to  the  highest  interests  of  mankind.  It 
is  impossible  for  the  average  Catholic  man  to 
stand  his  ground ;  he  gets  swept  off  his  feet  and 
becomes  carried  away  by  the  movement.  With 
those  persons  who  write  assuring  me  that  Socialism 
has  not  interfered  with  their  religion,  I  am  not  for 
the  moment  concerned. 

I  shall  be  told  that  in  England,  at  all  events, 
Sociahsm  has,  as  a  rule,  no  anti-Christian  implica- 
tions. It  assumes  no  materialistic  philosophy,  and 
stands  aloof  altogether  from  questions  of  religion. 

I  answer  first  that  in  point  of  fact  this  is  not  so. 
The  Socialism  which  the  people  know,  the  Social- 
ism which  is  being  assiduously  pumped  upon  our 
toiling  classes  from  platform  and  street  corners  and 
press,  takes,  in  the  main,  the  same  view  of  human 
destiny  and  of  rehgious  truth  as  does  the  Socialism 
of  the  S.  P.  G.  B.  It  is  an  international  move- 
ment of  common  origin  and  progress.  Its  ethical 
outlook  is  always  and  everywhere  the  same. 

This  is  a  statement  which  we  have  already  in  part 
verified.  We  are  not  dealing  with  abstractions  and 
considering  what  might  be.  We  are  witnessing  an 
agitation  which  is  being  carried  on  in  oiir  midst 
by  men  and  women  organized  in  certain  definite 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  181 

societies  with  ascertainable  aims  and  programmes, 
methods  and  ideals.  Let  us  therefore  look  at  the 
chief  bodies  which  make  up  the  socialist  army,  say, 
in  England,  and  see  whether  or  not  their  aims  and 
ideals  are  any  more  compatible  than  those  of 
Sociahsts  abroad  with  the  teaching  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

Let  us  begin  with  the  Social  Democratic  Federa- 
tion which,  I  may  assure  you,  is  pouring  its  litera- 
ture over  our  wage-earning  classes  and  represent- 
ing itself  (not  without  some  reason)  as  the  real 
Socialism,  the  genuine  article,  true  red  Marxian,  and 
allied  with  the  great  movement  on  the  continent. 

Mr.  Wells  admits  that  the  Socialism  of  the 
S.  D.  F.  is  to  this  day  '^  strongly  anti-Christian  in 
tone."  We  need  scarcely  allege  evidence  to  prove 
so  notorious  a  fact.  A  glance  at  the  literature 
published  by  the  revolutionary  body  should  be 
enough  to  put  the  matter  beyond  all  dispute. 

Let  us  pass  to  the  second  and  more  important 
sociaUst  body,  the  Independent  Labour  Party. 
It  is  more  important  because  it  is,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  succeeding  to  some  extent  in  organizing  the 
working  classes,  which  the  S.  D,  F.  appears  unable 
to  do  on  any  appreciable  scale.  The  Indepen- 
dent Labour  Party  is  generally  admitted  to  be 
working  on   lines  which,  as   Mr.   Hunter  points 


182  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

out,  brings  it  into  line  with  the  most  advanced 
Socialism  of  the  continent,  without  alarming 
those  to  whom  the  outspoken  principles  of  con- 
tinental Socialism  would  be  distasteful. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  work  of  organization 
which  is  going  forward  with  such  rapidity  under 
the  auspices  of  the  I.  L.  P.  often  disguises  from  the 
eyes  of  the  plain  man  the  real  aim  for  which  the 
I.  L.  P.  is  steadily  working.  Hence,  in  order  to 
discover  the  true  inwardness  of  this  movement  we 
must  go,  not  to  the  plain,  blunt,  and  unsuspicious 
member,  but  to  the  leaders  themselves ;  and  from 
them  we  shall  find  the  issues  plainly  enough  stated. 

To  what  spirit,  then,  are  the  members  of  the 
I.  L.  P.  being  moulded?  What  is  theu"  attitude 
towards  Christianity  ? 

"The  Independent  Labour  Party  is  a  socialist 
organization,"  writes  Mr.  Keir  Hardie,  its  founder, 
"and  for  most  of  us  Socialists  is  a  rehgion.  .  .  . 
To  99  per  cent  of  the  members  of  the  I.  L.  P 
Socialism  comes  with  all  the  emotional  power  of 
a  great  rehgious  truth.  .  .  .  Man  is  at  bottom 
a  rehgious  enthusiast  lured  on  by  his  vision  of  a 
Kingdom  of  God  upon  earth.  Nothing  else  ex- 
plains the  enthusiasm  of  the  I.  L.  P."  ("The 
I.  L.  P.     All  About  It,"  p.  3.) 

But  what  is  the  nature  of  this  "reUgion"  which 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  183 

the  I.  L.  p.  is  bent  on  fostering  ?  We  fear  that  not 
all  even  of  its  members  realize  what  it  involves. 
In  the  first  place,  the  I.  L.  P.  is,  as  Mr.  Hardie 
points  out  in  the  same  pamphlet,  an  international 
party  (p.  12),  in  touch  with  the  representatives 
of  Socialism  abroad,  of  that  ''continental  Social- 
ism" which,  as  Mr.  Wells  has  told  us,  is  "strongly 
anti-Christian  in  tone."  What  is  more,  it  devotes 
a  considerable  amount  of  its  energies  to  the  task 
of  initiating  the  British  workmen  into  the  spe- 
cifically anti-Christian  conceptions  of  continental 
SociaUsm.  A  glance  at  its  authorized  publications 
will  make  this  clear,  a  perusal  of  its  ''classics" 
will  satisfy  you. 

We  may  point  out,  too,  that  the  I.  L.  P.  is  re- 
sponsible for  circulating  Blatchford's  attacks  on 
Christianity  (cf .  Labour  Leader  for  October  4,  1907, 
and  Mr.  Glasier's  admissions)  and  the  atheistic 
publications  of  the  rationalist  press.  What  does 
all  this  mean  ?     It  is  not  without  significance. 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  I.  L.  P.,  at  their  council 
meeting  held  on  October  the  4th  and  5th  of  1907, 
adopted  the  following  resolution  :  — 

"The  National  Council  of  the  Independent 
Labour  Party  repudiates  the  attack  upon  Social- 
ism on  the  ground  that  Socialism  is  opposed  to 
rehgion,  and  declares  that  the  sociaUst  movement 


184  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

embraces  men  and  women  of  all  religions  and  forms 
of  belief,  and  offers  the  most  complete  freedom  in 
this  respect  within  its  ranks." 

We  fear  that  this  means  very  little.  It  means 
no  more  than  did  the  declarations  of  the  Erfurt 
Programme  that  ''religion  is  declared  to  be  a 
private  concern,"  or  the  previous  declaration  of 
the  Gotha  Programme  that  ''religion  is  ruled  to  be 
a  private  matter."  Similar  resolutions  are  not  un- 
frequently  passed  in  socialist  gatherings  with  a 
view  to  disarming  suspicion.  How  are  they  to  be 
interpreted?  By  the  socialist  ideals  and  by  the 
socialist  practice.  What  practical  indication  have 
Socialists  ever  given  that  they  would  be  prepared 
to  respect  the  religious  convictions  of  others  in  the 
event  of  a  socialist  regime?  Wliat  becomes  of 
the  workingman's  religion  after  he  has  enlisted  in 
the  ranks  of  Socialism  ? 

The  German  Socialists  have,  in  their  pro- 
grammes, made  religion  a  private  affair.  But  the 
German  Socialists  lose  no  opportunity  of  attack- 
ing the  Christian  religion  and  doing  their  best  to 
uproot  it.  Hence,  when  English  Socialists  de- 
clare that  they  too  would  have  religion  to  be  a  pri- 
vate affair,  we  look  not  to  words  but  to  their 
practical  interpretation.  And  we  find  the  practi- 
cal interpretation  to  be  the  same  in  both  countries. 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  185 

The  visible  Catholic  Church  is  disliked  and 
maligned  equally  in  Italy  and  France,  and  in  Eng- 
land and  America  no  less.  In  my  travels  through 
the  States  I  have  made  a  practice  of  buying 
sociahst  papers  in  circulation.  In  most  copies 
of  them  I  found  vile  attacks  upon  religion;  if 
not  always  direct,  at  least  indirect,  attacks. 

I  have  referred  to  the  S.  D.  F.  and  the  I.  L.  P. 
Now  what  of  Mr.  Blatchford  and  his  Clarion  ? 
It  may  be  urged  that  Mr.  Blatchford  and  the 
Clarion  are  not  English  Socialism.  I  reply  that 
they  stand  for  the  Socialism  with  which  thousands 
of  British  workingmen  are  being  indoctrinated. 
You  may  not  be  familiar  with  the  nature  and  ex- 
tent of  Mr.  Blatchford's  propaganda.  Let  me  tell 
you  that  over  a  million  copies  of  "  Merrie  Eng- 
land "  have  been  sold.  A  very  large  number  of 
workingmen  allow  Mr.  Blatchford  to  do  their 
thinking  for  them.  These  men  will  control  the 
nation,  so  far  as  is  in  their  power,  on  Mr.  Blatch- 
ford's Hues.  The  Clarion  and  its  alUed  publica- 
tions must  certainly  be  taken  into  account  when 
forming  an  estimate  of  the  actual  relations 
of  Sociahsm  to  Christianity  in  England :  for  it  is 
the  Socialism  of  a  very  large  number  of  men,  and 
it  would  find  its  expression  in  actual  measures 
were  the  cause  of  Socialism  to  triumph. 


186  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Mr.  Wells  is  much  distressed  at  the  unsym- 
pathetic attitude  of  the  Catholic  Church  towards 
Socialism.  He  gently  insinuates  that  it  may  be 
due  to  a  misapprehension. 

"It  is  said,  indeed,  that  a  good  Catholic  of  the 
Roman  Communion  cannot  also  be  any  sort  of  a 
Socialist.  Even  this  very  general  persuasion  may 
not  be  quite  correct.  I  believe  the  papal  pro- 
hibition was  originally  aimed  entirely  at  a  specific 
form  of  Socialism,  the  Socialism  of  Marx,  Engels, 
and  Bebel,  which  is,  I  must  admit,  unfortunately 
strongly  anti-Christian  in  tone,  as  is  the  Socialism 
of  the  British  Social  Democratic  Federation  to 
this  day.  It  is  true  that  many  leaders  of  the 
Socialist  Party  have  also  been  Secularists,  and 
that  they  have  mingled  their  theological  prejudices 
with  their  political  work.  This  is  the  case  not 
only  in  Germany  and  America,  but  in  Great 
Britain,  where  Mr.  Robert  Blatchford,  of  the 
Clarion,  for  example,  has  carried  on  a  campaign 
against  doctrinal  Christianity.  But  this  associa- 
tion of  Secularism  and  Socialism  is  only  the  in- 
evitable throwing  together  of  two  sets  of  ideas 
because  they  have  this  in  common,  that  they  run 
counter  to  generally  received  opinions :  there  is 
no  other  connection  (pp.  197,  198).  .  .  .  Per- 
haps, after   alL  the  Church   does   not  mean  by 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  187 

Socialismus  Socialism  as  it  is  understood  in  Eng- 
lish :  perhaps  it  simply  means  the  dogmatical, 
anti-Christian  Sociahsm  of  the  Continental  type  " 
(p.  139). 

But  since  Socialism  is  an  international  move- 
ment with  close  international  relations,  the  fact 
that  the  "Continental  type"  of  Socialism  is  dog- 
matically anti-Christian  is  not  without  interest 
for  ourselves,  especially  in  view  of  the  eagerness 
with  which  English  and  American  Socialists  copy 
continental  patterns.  And  what,  after  all,  is 
''Socialism  as  it  is  understood  in  English?"  Mr. 
Wells  has  given  away  at  one  fell  swoop  the 
S.  D.  F.,  "many  leaders  of  the  Socialist  party"  even 
in  Great  Britain,  and  Mr.  Blatchford  of  the  Clarion. 
He  might,  as  we  have  seen,  have  added  the  I.  L.  P. 

Now  what  does  Socialism  mean  to  the  British 
workingman,  if  it  does  not  mean  the  Clarion, 
the  S.  D.  F.,  the  I.  L.  P.,  and  the  S.  P.  G.  B.  ? 

Mr.  Wells,  in  order  to  reassure  us,  points  trium- 
phantly to  the  Fabian  Society,  and  in  particular 
to  Fabian  tracts  by  Dr.  Clifford  and  the  Rev. 
Stewart  Headlam  and  also  to  Rev.  R.  J.  Camp- 
bell's "Christianity  and  Social  Order."  With 
these  and  other  "Christian  Sociahsts"  I  shall  deal 
in  another  Conference.  But  I  may  say  at  once  that 
no  serious  student  of  the  movement  will  regard 


188  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

them  as  possessing  any  influence  in  the  evolution 
of  the  SociaHsm  that  counts.  SociaHsm  "as  it  is 
understood  in  Enghsh  "  is  not  the  SociaHsm  of  Mr. 
Headlam  and  his  friends,  nor  is  it  ever  Kkely  to  be. 

We  are  told,  then,  by  Mr.  Wells  that  there  is 
no  reason  for  alarm.  True,  continental  Social- 
ism is  secularistic,  the  S.  D.  F.  is  secularistic, 
the  I.  L.  P.  and  the  S.  P.  G.  B.  are  secularistic 
(see  their  programmes),  the  Clarion  is  secularistic, 
"many  Socialist  leaders  in  Great  Britain  are  sec- 
ularistic," but  the  Fabian  Society  has  no  such 
theological  prejudice.  The  Fabian  Society  has 
made  the  required  distinction  between  "two  en- 
tirely separate  thought-processes,"  and  to  the  Fa- 
bian Society  we  may  safely  conmiit  ourselves. 

Now  although  the  Fabian  Society  has  exer- 
cised a  very  considerable  influence  among  a  certain 
class  of  people  in  the  matter  of  socialist  education 
and  propaganda,  it  has  not  so  much  as  attempted 
to  organize  politically  the  working  classes.  Mr. 
Robert  Hunter  (a  shrewd  and  well-informed 
American  socialist  writer)  points  out  that  the 
Fabians  have,  from  the  socialist  point  of  view,  ad- 
vanced no  further  than  the  position  of  the  French 
SociaHsts  before  1848;  and  he  does  not  conceal 
his  conviction  that  they  are  "Utopians"  who  are 
outside  the  real  currents  of  sociaUst  thought. 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  189 

"  To  have  a  history  of  agitation  in  London  (he 
says)  extending  over  twenty-seven  years,  and  to 
show  at  the  end  of  that  period  no  definite  pohtical 
organization  of  the  working  classes,  is  perhaps 
the  most  damaging  evidence  against  the  Fabian 
pohcy."     C  SociaUsts  at  Work,"  p.  205.) 

Mr.  Hunter  consoles  himself  with  the  reflection 
that  there  are  few  Sociahsts  outside  England  who 
advocate  Fabian  tactics  (p.  108). 

Hence,  even  were  it  true  that  the  Fabians  keep 
their  Socialism  free  from  secularism,  we  should 
not  feel  perfectly  reassured.  For  the  Fabians,  sug- 
gestive and  interesting  as  they  may  be,  do  not  con- 
trol the  swelhng  tide  of  Enghsh  Socialism. 

However,  Mr.  Wells  has  appealed  to  the  Fabians 
and  to  the  Fabians  we  shall  go.  Of  the  clergymen 
who  have  WTitten  Fabian  tracts  I  shall  speak 
presently ;  it  \\dll  be  seen  that  they  increase  rather 
than  diminish  our  conviction  as  to  the  secularist 
impHcations  of  Sociahsm.  But  what  of  the  other 
Fabians?  Do  they  keep  their  secularism  out  of 
their  Sociahsm? 

Let  us  take  Fabian  Tract  No.  72,  The  Moral 
Aspect  of  Socialism,  by  Mr.  Sidney  Ball,  M.A.,  of 
St.  John's  College,  Oxford. 

"It  would  be  idle  to  deny  (he  writes)  that 
Socialism  involves  a  change  which  would  be  al- 


190  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

most  a  revolution  in  the  moral  and  religious 
attitude  of  the  majority  of  mankind.  We  may 
agree  with  Mill  that  it  is  impossible  to  define  with 
any  sort  of  precision  the  coming  modification  of 
moral  and  religious  ideas.  We  may  further,  how- 
ever, agree  that  it  will  rest  (as  Comte  said)  upon 
the  solidarity  of  mankind  (as  represented  by  the 
Idea  of  State)  "  (p.  23). 

SociaHsm,  then,  involves  a  change  in  religion  and 
it  is  to  base  its  religion  upon  the  Idea  of  the  State. 
Hence  Socialism,  as  interpreted  by  a  distinguished 
Fabian,  has  theological  implications,  and  its  re- 
ligion (or  substitute  for  religion)  is  not  that  of 
Christ  but  of  Comte. 

Of  Mr.  Bernard  Shaw,  the  most  widely  known  of 
the  Fabian  writers,  little  need  be  said.  I  would 
only  observe  that  his  flippant  irreverence  and  anti- 
Christian  bias  are  not  merely  exhibitions  of  per- 
sonal bad  taste.  They  are  regarded  by  himself  as 
part  of  his  socialistic  message. 

I  shall  take  one  more  example  from  the  ranks  of 
the  Fabians,  and  this  time  it  will  be  Mr.  Wells 
himself.  Despite  his  invitation  to  Catholic  flies 
that  they  should  walk  into  his  socialistic  parlour, 
the  contents  of  that  parlour  are  not  such  as  to 
reassure  those  of  us  who  retain  a  belief  in  re- 
vealed   religion.    True,    he    is    convinced    that 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  191 

"  Christianity  involves  ...  a  practical  Socialism 
if  it  is  honestly  carried  out."  ("  New  Worlds  for 
Old,"  p.  197.)  But  the  Christian  ideal  is,  he  goes  on 
to  tell  us,  the  ideal  of  WilUam  Morris's,  "News  from 
Nowhere"  {ibid.,  p.  255),  which  again  is  the  ideal 
of  every  man  with  "a,  full  sense  of  beauty."  But 
Christianity  watered  down  to  aesthetics  is  not  the 
Christianity  with  which  we  are  in  any  way  con- 
cerned. 

Mr.  Wells  is  careful  to  tell  us  what  might  be 
expected  to  happen  to  the  CathoUc  Church  under 
a  sociahst  regime.  We  will  select  but  one  point 
of  his  forecast. 

"There  seems  no  objection  and  no  obstacle  in 
Sociahsm,"  he  says,  "to  rehgious  houses,  to  nunner- 
ies, to  monasteries,  and  the  like,  so  far  as  these  in- 
stitutions are  compatible  with  personal  freedom  and 
the  pubhc  health,  but  of  course  factory  laws  and 
building  laws  will  run  through  all  these  places, 
and  the  common  laws  and  limitations  of  contract 
overrides  their  vows  if  their  devotees  repent. 
So  you  see  Sociahsm  will  touch  nothing  Uving  of 
reUgion."  (Ibid.,  p.  330.) 

This  is  charmingly  ingenuous !  The  State  is 
to  determine  how  much  of  religion  is  hving  and 
how  much  is  dead.  I  fear  that  the  average 
Sociahst  starts  with  a  certain  prejudice  in  the 


192  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

matter.  Even  so  temperate  a  writer  as  Mr.  Wells 
apparently  fails  to  realize  that  some  matters  are 
subject  to  laws  which  transcend  the  common 
contract  law  "whenever  the  contracting  parties 
repent." 

Mr.  Wells's  socialist  parlour  would  seem  to 
contain  a  Procrustean  bed  for  the  benefit  of 
Catholics.  Yet  even  that  is  better  than  what 
they  would  find  awaiting  them  in  the  parlour  of 
the  complete  Socialist,  —  to  wit,  a  guillotine. 

This  brings  us  to  the  whole  question  as  to  how 
Christianity  might  be  expected  to  fare  under 
Socialism.  I  will  confine  myself  to  the  case  of 
Catholics  (for  with  their  case  I  am  chiefly  con- 
cerned), though  much  of  what  I  shall  have  to  say 
may  give  matter  for  reflection  to  all  who  retain 
any  belief  in  revealed  religion. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  socialist  regime  has  been 
established,  either  violently  (as  the  S.  D.  F.  ad- 
vocate) or  by  a  peaceful  process  of  Fabian  per- 
meation. The  House  of  Commons,  we  will  -im- 
agine, has  an  overwhelming  socialist  majority, 
the  Crown  and  the  Lords  are  abolished,  and 
Socialists  rule  the  London  county  council  and 
all  municipal  bodies. 

And  now  what  is  to  be  done  about  the  Catholic 
rehgion  ?    The  question  will  have  to  be  settled  by 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  193 

men  who  resemble  the  members  of  existing  social- 
ist bodies,  —  by  men,  that  is  to  say,  whose  atti- 
tude towards  Catholicism  varies  from  an  intense 
and  even  virulent  opposition  to  a  frank  disdain, 
or,  at  best,  to  a  complete  inability  to  understand 
the  position  of  those  to  whom  the  supernatural  is 
the  most  real  thing  of  which  man  has  knowledge. 

A  little  acquaintance  with  history  will  reveal 
the  fact  that  when  religious  legislation  is  framed 
by  men  who  are  not  alive  to  the  inwardness  of 
rehgion,  the  ''left  wing"  generally  has  its  own  way. 
For  the  "left  wing"  is  consistent  and  has  a  simple 
and  definite  programme,  —  Ecrasez  Vinfdme,  or 
something  equally  drastic,  —  while  the  rest  of  the 
governing  body  can  but  propose  a  compromise 
which  is  apt  to  be  half-hearted.  So  the  consistent 
section  generally  gets  its  way.  Its  point  niight  be 
illustrated  by  the  history  of  more  than  one  Liberal 
Government  on  the  continent  of  recent  years. 
Had  Cathohcs  of  England  during  the  past  few 
years  been  a  little  less  determined,  we  might  have 
been  able  to  illustrate  the  point  by  an  example 
nearer  home. 

However,  let  us  suppose  that  this  is  not  the 
case.  Let  us  imagine  that,  contrary  to  all  the 
tendencies  which  the  main  currents  of  Socialism 
have  always  and  everywhere  displayed,  the  work 


194  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

of  discovering  a  modus  Vivendi  for  belated  super- 
naturalists  is  confided  to  a  committee  consisting 
of  a  number  of  men  as  well-intentioned  and  un- 
prejudiced as  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells.  I  will  not  even 
embarrass  their  task  by  adding  a  sprinkling  of 
Drs.  Cliffords  and  Rew.  Campbells. 

Now,  what  will  be  the  task  in  front  of  these 
gentlemen,  and  how  can  they  accomplish  it  so  as 
to  allow  to  Catholics  an  even  tolerable  existence  ? 

''The  heavy  social  burdens  that  oppress  re- 
ligious bodies  (says  Mr.  Wells)  will  (in  a  socialist 
State)  be  altogether  lifted  from  them.  They  will 
have  no  poor  to  support,  no  schools,  no  hospitals, 
no  nursing  sisters ;  the  advance  of  civilization  will 
have  taken  over  these  duties  which  Christianity 
first  taught  us  to  realize." 

But  here  difficulties  begin  to  thicken  about  the 
heads  of  our  well-intentioned  committee.  After 
all,  they  cannot  put  a  million  Lancashire  folk  and 
four  hundred  thousand  Londoners  into  the  lethal 
chamber.  And  until  they  do  so  they  will  find  these 
among  the  number  of  British  subjects  (a  number 
which  shows  no  sign  of  diminishing,  in  spite  of 
rationalist  propaganda)  in  set  rebellion  against 
certain  items  of  Mr.  Wells's  good-natured  pro- 
gramme: ''The  religious  bodies  will  have  .  .  . 
to  support  ...  no  schools."     There  will  indeed 


SOCIALISM  AND   RELIGION  195 

be  little  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  religious 
bodies  to  the  proposal  that  they  should  not  sup- 
port their  schools.  Were  this  alone  intended,  Mr. 
Wells  would  indeed  be  a  benefactor.  But  we 
fear  that  the  emphasis  is  on  the  ''have,"  — 
CathoHcs  would  have  no  schools  either  to  support 
or  to  control.  This  state  of  things  they  would 
emphatically  resist. 

I  cannot  here  go  into  the  whole  weary  question 
of  education.  Suffice  to  say,  that  although  the 
Cathohc  demand  for  Catholic  teaching,  in  Catholic 
schools,  by  Catholic  teachers,  is  demonstrably  just 
and  is  in  fact  the  only  solution  which  can  bring 
peace  to  any  educationally  distracted  country,  yet 
it  is  almost  impossible  to  drive  into  the  heads  of 
those  who  have  not  a  glimmering  as  to  what 
Catholicism  is  all  about,  the  notion  that  the 
Catholic  demand  for  Catholic  education  is  a 
reasonable  demand.  The  secularist  —  even  the 
well-meaning  secularist  —  commonly  persists  in 
thinking  that  we  harbour  a  prejudice  in  favour  of 
obscurantism  and  inferior  sewage.  Let  us  hear 
Mr.  Wells  himself ;  he  is  considering  the  effects 
which  would  follow  "a  reaction"  in  favour  of 
parental  rights :  — 

"Subject  to  the  influence  of  a  powerful  and  well- 
organized   Church,   a  rejuvenescent   Church,  he, 


196  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

the  father,  is  to  resume  that  control  over  wife  and 
children  of  which  the  modern  State  has  partially 
deprived  him.  The  development  of  a  secular 
education  is  to  be  arrested,  particular  stress  is  to 
be  laid  upon  the  wickedness  of  any  intervention 
with  natural  reproductive  processes,  the  spread  of 
knowledge  in  certain  directions  is  to  be  made 
criminal,  and  early  marriages  are  to  be  encouraged. 
...  I  do  not  by  any  means  regard  this  as  an 
impossible  programme;  I  believe  that  in  many 
directions  it  is  quite  a  practicable  one;  it  is  in 
harmony  with  great  masses  of  feeling  in  the  coun- 
try, and  with  many  natural  instincts.  It  would 
not,  of  course,  affect  the  educated  wealthy  and 
leisurely  upper  class  in  the  community,  who  would 
be  able  and  intelligent  enough  to  impose  their 
own  private  glosses  upon  its  teaching,  but  it 
would  'moralize'  the  general  population,  and 
reduce  them  to  a  state  of  prolific  squalor.  Its 
realization  would  be,  I  believe,  almost  inevitably 
accompanied  by  a  decline  in  sanitation,  and  a 
correlated  rise  in  birth-rate  and  death-rate,  for 
life  would  be  cheap  and  drain-pipes  and  anti- 
septics dear."  ("  SociaHsm  and  the  Family,"  pp. 
53-55.) 

But  is  there  really  any  necessary  connection  be- 
tween the  vindication  of  due  parental  rights  and 


SOCIALISM  AND   RELIGION  197 

bad  drainage :  or  do  we  religiously  cultivate 
squalor,  and  all  disease-producing  microbes  ? 
Catholics  want,  like  others,  to  reduce  squalor.  But 
there  is  something  about  which  they  are  still  more 
anxious  :  they  pay  their  ungrudging  tribute  of  ad- 
miration and  gratitude  for  the  municipal  trolley  and 
for  cheap  fares  to  children — but  they  want  Catholic 
education  for  their  children  much  more  than  cheap 
transportation.  ' '  I  won't  have  my  children  growing 
up  into  irreligious  products  of  a  godless  school,"  is 
possibly  the  form  in  which  their  prejudice  might  be 
expressed.  And  some  acquaintance  with  secularist 
education  might  explain  their  warmth  of  feeling 
in  the  matter.  We  know  something  of  the  pro- 
fanity and  lack  of  reverence,  the  bad  manners  and 
worse  talk,  that  is  fostered  in  many  an  elementary 
school  where  drainage  is  perfect,  the  microbe  rare, 
and  appurtenances  are  magnificent :  and  we  con- 
trast them  with  the  joyous  innocence,  the  honesty 
and  the  respect  for  self  and  others  which  for  the 
most  part  are  to  be  found  in  schools  taught  by  Reli- 
gious who  have  to  struggle  with  poverty.  Consult 
unprejudiced  school  inspectors  on  either  side  of 
the  Atlantic,  and  you  will  understand  what  I  say. 
Truth  to  tell.  Socialism  and  Christianity  cannot 
come  together;  they  move  in  opposite  directions; 
they  are  as  much  apart  as  Earth  and  Heaven. 


VI 

SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS 

It  is  altogether  unnecessary  to  draw  out  a 
long  thesis  to  show  that  Christian  Socialism  is  a 
form  of  Collectivism  repudiated  by  all  thorough- 
going Socialists.  It  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
It  says  one  thing  and  means  another.  The  man- 
in-the-street  assures  me  that  the  Christian  Socialist 
is  tolerated  only  by  the  vote  catcher.  ''We  have 
got  no  use  for  him,"  said  a  gold  miner  to  me  at  Daw- 
son. ''Whynot?"askedL  ''Well,"  he  continued, 
"  it  is  like  this.  If  he  is  a  real  nugget,  a  church- 
going  Christian,  he  is  looking  beyond  what  we  are. 
He's  a  Northern  Light,  he  is.  What  we  want, 
is  no  sky-piloted  Sociahst,  but  on  the  contrary, 
we  believe  in  the  man  who  is  whole-hearted  on 
the  job.  We  have  a  class-basis  for  our  Socialism. 
We  have  class-hatred,  no  lying  brotherhood,  prom- 
ising two  heavens,  one  down  here,  and  the 
other  up  there."  "  Till  Socialism  gets  hold  of  the 
heart,"  said  another,  "  it  is  not  going  to  be  busy 
for  the  workingman;  it  is  not  his  religion,  and  till 

198 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     199 

it  is  we  have  no  use  for  him."  Everywhere,  from 
the  Hudson  to  the  Yukon,  I  found  the  wage-earn- 
ing SoeiaHst  to  be  the  same  dead-earnest  apostle, 
believing  in  his  mission,  and  prepared  to  make  un- 
Umited  sacrifices  to  promote  its  interests  and  to 
extend  its  boundaries.  One  man  told  me  that 
Socialism  was  like  mining,  it  obsessed  you,  it  dis- 
satisfied you  for  anything  else,  it  buoyed  you  up 
and  made  you  feel,  as  nothing  else  did,  that  life 
was  worth  living,  and  that  one  day  you  would  strike 
gold  and  put  the  present  robber  millionnaire  in  his 
right  place.  "It  may  not  come  in  my  time," 
concluded  my  friend  in  overalls,  ''but  it  is  rising, 
as  sure  as  the  tide,  and  before  my  children  are 
through,  the  thing  will  be  straightened  out  and 
there  v^all  be  but  one  class  in  the  States  —  the 
working  class,  with  plenty  to  go  round,  and  to 
spare." 

I  suggested  that  it  was  the  money  and  not  the 
work  that  the  Socialist  wanted  to  go  round,  and 
that  if  men  refused  to  work,  there  certainly  would 
not  be  enough  to  go  round.  I  told  him  that  on 
the  ship  which  had  brought  me  to  the  Northland 
the  quartermaster  had  said  to  me  that  it  was  not 
at  all  likely  he  and  his  mates  were  going  to  work  as 
a  crew,  if,  after  their  time  was  served,  they  were 
to  be  called  upon  to  divide  up  their  pay  with 


200  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

loafers  and  loiterers  on  shore.  "What  we  are 
all  looking  for  is  a  bit  of  a  home  of  our  own, 
with  bits  of  green  stuff  to  brighten  our  store 
windows,  and  a  tidy  bit  to  put  by  for  our  own 
when  we  are  gone.  Be  sure  of  this,"  he  went  on 
to  say,  ''we  sea-faring  men  have  got  grit  and  sand 
in  us,  and  we  don't  want  anybody  else's  dimes ; 
we  want  our  own,  and  it's  up  to  us  to  shake  off 
this  Socialism  which  is  only  bred  in  idle  bones, 
and  in  the  men  on  the  wharf  who  make  a  sorry 
face  when  you  land,  and  want  the  loan  of  a  dollar 
which  they  never  offer  to  pay.  When  there's 
anything  doing,  they  close  up  like  clams." 

My  Northland  miner  was  not  to  be  put  off.  He 
believed  that  the  loiterer  and  tramp  were  bred 
of  discontent,  that  when  their  circumstances  and 
opportunities  would  improve,  they  too  would  im- 
prove. He  quoted  Lloyd  George  and  his  de- 
nunciations of  the  ''idle  rich,"  and  declared  that 
the  working  class  had  as  much  claim  to  idle  as 
rich  men,  but  that  when  the  reign  of  SociaHsm 
should  dawn,  there  would  be  no  more  idlers,  no 
more  unemployed  or  unemployables. 

It  is  quite  surprising  to  find  among  Socialists 
an  almost  universal  belief  in  the  innate  good- 
ness and  industry  of  man,  and  in  the  assump- 
tion that  it  is  the  present  iniquitous  state  of  so- 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     201 

ciety  which  has  dissatisfied,  degraded,  and  de- 
praved the  faulty  brother. 

I  spoke  with  another  Alaskan  Socialist  at 
Ketchekan  —  I  was  looking  over  the  creek  bridge 
where  10,000  salmon,  so  thick  that  you  could  not 
see  the  bottom  of  the  stream,  were  fighting  their 
way  up  the  rapids  to  lay  their  spawn  in  the  sand 
banks  beyond.  There  they  were  batthng  for 
dear  hfe,  it  taking  some  of  them  four  days  to  win 
as  many  yards. 

I  turned  to  my  sociaUst  friend  and  observed : 
''Here  is  an  equal  opportunity  for  all,  but  I  notice 
it  is  only  the  strong  and  the  strenuous  salmon  that 
force  their  way  and  forge  to  the  front.  Is  not 
this  wondrous  sight  a  picture  of  what  happens  in 
the  human  race?"  He  turned  to  me  and  said: 
''Socialism  is  going  to  make  it  easy  for  all.  When 
we  have  socialized  all  the  instruments  of  the  pro- 
duction of  wealth,  there  will  be  a  Uving  for  all ; 
then  hustUng  will  be  at  an  end ;  none  will  have 
to  lay  back."  He  told  me  SociaHsm  was  growing 
all  the  time,  and  that  there  were  thousands  of 
Catholics  among  them  in  Alaska.  I  asked  him 
whether  he  beheved  in  Christian  SociaHsm.  He 
smiled,  and  said  they  claimed  to  have  them  in 
Chicago,  where  they  published  a  paper  called  The 
Christian  Socialist,  but  they  were  of  no  more  use 


202  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

than  a  prairie  dog.  Socialism  was  all  or  nothing. 
It  was  the  best  religion  that  ever  was  started,  and 
it  was  going  to  win.  One  thing  is  sure,  and  it  is 
this,  that  the  workingman  on  this  continent  believes 
there  must  be  a  change,  and  he  will  tell  you  that  no 
matter  what  you  have  against  Socialism  you  will 
have  to  give  it  a  chance.  ''It  may  not  be  the 
best  solution  of  the  difficulty,"  said  a  group  of 
Western  cowboys,  ''but  it's  the  best  as  we  know  of. 
It  can't  be  worse  than  the  present  state  of  things, 
and  if  we  give  it  a  square  deal,  it  will  most  likely 
be  far  better  for  all  of  us.  Anyway,  it's  coming, 
and  we  are  in  with  it." 

Another  httle  group  of  men  from  the  copper 
mines  informed  me  that  they  had  been  working 
for  seven  weeks,  and  had  laid  aside  200  dollars 
each  which  they  would  "fire,"  or  spend  in  less  than 
a  week  at  Seattle.  "We  are  like  this  ship,"  said 
one ;  "we  load  up  to  unload ;  when  we  are  through 
with  our  'poke'  we  will  return  for  another  freight." 
I  expostulated  with  them  and  argued  how  much 
better  it  would  be  for  them  and  for  their  characters, 
if,  Hke  the  beaver,  the  squirrel,  the  woodpecker, 
the  ant,  and  the  bee,  they  banked  what  they  could 
spare,  becoming  like  them  thriving,  provident  cap- 
itaUsts.  They  repUed  that  thrift  was  no  plank  in 
the  socialist  programme ;  that  it  was  better  to  be 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     203 

"down  and  out "  than  to  hoard  like  a  miser.  When 
Sociahsm  came  in,  there  would  be  one  crime  only, 
capital.  jMeanwhile  they  did  as  they  willed  with 
their  own. 

These  happy-go-lucky  bread  earners,  who  live 
from  hand  to  mouth,  who  will  spend  hundreds  a 
night  in  a  saloon,  and  when  broken  and  turned 
out,  quietly  return  to  work  till  they  have  loaded 
up  for  another  spill,  are  mere  tools  in  the  hand 
of  the  soap-box  socialist  orator.  They  greedily 
gulp  down  all  he  says,  and  readily  beheve  in 
the  forthcoming  millenium  which  he  promises. 
They  have  little  outlook  beyond  the  realms  of 
hippodromes,  saloons,  and  dime-theatres. 

Mr.  Charles  E.  Russell,  socialist  candidate  for 
governor  of  New  York  last  year,  was  not  hitting 
beyond  the  mark  when  he  said:  ''To  these  men 
and  women.  Socialism  does  not  mean  a  political 
party  organized  to  win  elections  and  to  secure 
offices:  Socialism  is  to  them  a  religion."  For  the 
most  part  they  know  none  other. 

Joseph  Leatham  in  his  work,  "  Socialism  and 
Character,"  does  not  hesitate  to  say,  "I  cannot 
remember  a  single  instance  of  a  person  who  is 
at  once  a  really  earnest  Socialist  and  an  orthodox 
Christian." 

The  New   York  Call,  March  2,  1911,  reminds 


204  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

its  readers  that:  ''There  is  nothing  to  be  gained 
by  holding  out  false  hopes  that  a  study  of  Social- 
ism does  not  tend  to  undermine  religious  beliefs. 
The  theory  of  economic  determinism  alone,"  it 
goes  on  to  say,  ''if  thoroughly  grasped,  leaves  no 
room  for  a  beUef  in  the  supernatural."  We  are 
reminded,  too,  in  a  tract  called  Christian  Socialism 
(p.  23)  that  "  no  Christian  who  accepts  the  Ten 
Commandments  as  the  basis  of  the  moral  law  can 
possibly  deny  the  right  of  private  individual  prop- 
erty. If  the  Christian  Socialist  admits  this,  he 
is  no  Socialist ;  if  he  denies  it,  he  is  no  Christian." 
*'The  contradiction  in  terms,"  writes  the  author 
of  "  Socialism  and  Religion,"  "known  as  the  Chris- 
tian Socialist  is  inevitably  antagonistic  to  working- 
class  interests  and  the  waging  of  the  class  struggle. 
His  avowed  object  is  usually  to  purge  the  socialist 
movement  of  its  materialism,  and  this,  as  we  have 
seen,  means  to  purge  it  of  its  Socialism  and  to 
divert  it  from  its  material  aims  to  the  fruitless 
chasing  of  spiritual  will-o'-the-wisps."  He  con- 
cludes with  the  remark  that :  "A  Christian  Social- 
ist is,  in  fact,  an  anti-Socialist." 

In  this  pamphlet  published  by  "the  Socialist 
Party  of  Great  Britain  "  and  already  referred  to 
is  found  the  following  paragraph :  — 

"  The  inflexible  laws  of  the  known  universe  can- 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     205 

not  logically  be  held  to  cease  where  our  immediate 
experience  ends,  to  make  way  for  an  unscientific 
concept  of  an  uncaused  and  creating  Being.  The 
Creation  idea  is  unsupported  by  evidence,  and  is 
in  conflict  with  every  scientific  law.  Sociahsm 
is  consistent  only  with  that  monistic  view  which 
regards  all  phenomena  as  expressions  of  the  under- 
lying matter-force  reality  and  as  parts  of  the  unity 
of  Nature  which  interact  according  to  inviolable 
laws.  It  is  the  apphcation  of  science,  the  arch- 
enemy of  rehgion,  to  human  social  relationships ; 
and  just  as  the  basic  principle  of  the  philosophy 
of  Sociahsm  finds  itself  in  conflict  with  religion, 
so  does  it,  as  a  propagandist  movement,  find  re- 
ligion acting  against  it." 

The  pamphlet  continues  :  — 
"The  main  reason  for  capitaHsts'  liberality  to- 
ward religious  bodies  is  plain.  They  know  that 
religion  is  incompatible  with  Sociahsm,  and  look 
upon  it  rightly  as  a  working-class  soporific ;  in- 
deed, as  Marx  said,  'rehgion  is  the  opium  of  the 
people.'  And  it  is  thus  the  agent  of  class  domi- 
nation, not  only  because  of  its  behefs  and  organi- 
zation, but  also,  in  spite  of  opinions  to  the  con- 
trary, by  virtue  of  the  ethics  with  which  it  is 
associated.  The  teaching  of  the  Gospels,  so  far 
from  supporting  Sociahsm,  is  directly  hostile  to  it." 


206  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

The  dyed-in-the-wool  Sociahst  is  aggressive  in 
his  denunciation  of  the  ethics  of  the  Christian 
Socialist.  He  says:  ''The  asceticism,  self-abnega- 
tion, and  professed  other-worldliness  of  Christian 
teaching,  which  regards  this  earth  as  a  vale  of 
tears  and  a  painful  preparation  for  a  life  in  the 
clouds,  is  an  ethic  of  slavish  degradation ;  and 
when  taught  to  the  workers,  it  admirably  reflects 
the  narrowest  self-interest  of  the  exploiting  class. 
It  is  an  ethic  that  runs  counter  to  working-class 
interests  at  every  point.  It  is  the  counterpart, 
not  indeed  of  a  communist,  but  of  an  individualist 
society."  As  an  eminent  prelate  said  at  the  1909 
Church  Congress  at  Swansea,  "Individualism  is 
of  the  very  essence  of  Christianity."  And  Chris- 
tianity, we  may  add,  is  by  the  same  token  the 
very  antithesis  of  Socialism. 

I  have  shown  that  Socialism,  the  actual  living 
Socialism  which  is  preached  in  the  highways  and 
poured  from  the  popular  press,  is  a  Socialism 
which  is  antagonistic  to  Christianity.  Sometimes 
the  antagonism  is  displayed  openly  and  defiantly, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Social  Democratic  Party. 
Sometimes  it  is  encouraged  in  practice  and  dep- 
recated in  theory,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Indepen- 
dent Labor  Party.  Sometimes,  again,  it  is 
wrapped  up  in  semi-scientific  language,  and  we 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     207 

are  told  with  calm  assurance  that  in  future  the 
"Idea  of  the  State"  will  probably  give  us  all 
the  religion  we  shall  want. 

But  I  shall  be  told  that  Christian  Socialists 
have  for  their  aim  and  object  the  conversion  of 
Socialists  from  their  gross  materialism.  Here  it 
will  be  said  is  a  movement  which  will  christianize 
English  and  American  Socialism  and  deflect  it 
from  its  continental  atheism.  I  shall  be  reminded 
that  clergymen  have  written  Fabian  Tracts,  that 
Pan-Anglican  Congresses  are  largely  tinged  with 
Socialism,  that  a  hundred  and  fifteen  Christian 
ministers  have  signed  a  socialist  manifesto,  that 
a  number  of  advocates  of  Socialism  have  been 
found  at  Free  Church  Councils,  that  the  Christian 
Social  Union  harbours  many  socialist  members, 
that  the  Christian  Socialist  League  comprises  none 
but  socialist  members,  —  that,  in  short,  the  Chris- 
tian Socialist  is  abroad.^ 

^  The  Rev.  S.  Proudfoot  in  the  Church  Socialist  Quarterly 
(of  which  he  is  editor)  for  January,  1909,  thus  writes  of  one  of 
the  meetings  at  the  Church  Congress  of  1908 :  — 

"  It  is  hardly  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  if  a  vote  on  Social- 
ism had  been  taken  at  the  end  of  this  meeting,  a  majority 
would  have  been  found  supporting  it.  After  this  no  one  can 
charge  Socialism  as  being  anti-Christian.  Christians  at 
this  meeting  wore  shown  that  Socialists  wore  inspired  by 
Christ"  (p.  57;. 


208  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

I  have  not  overlooked  this  movement.  But 
as  the  result  of  a  careful  study  of  Christian 
Socialism  in  its  various  manifestations,  I  have 
come  to  two  conclusions.  The  first  is  that  the 
movement  stands  not  the  slightest  chance  of  coun- 
teracting the  predominantly  anti-Christian  tone 
of  current  Socialism.  The  second  is  that  in  so  far 
as  it  is  really  socialistic  and  not  merely  social, 
it  has  cut  the  ground  from  under  its  feet  by 
abandoning  what  is  most  characteristic  and  vital 
in  Christianity. 

Let  me  begin  by  paying  my  sincere  tribute  of 
praise  to  the  generous  spirit  in  which  many  clergy- 
men of  the  Established  Church,  and  of  the  Free 
Churches  are  endeavouring  to  grapple  with  social 
evils.  Their  sympathy  with  the  poor  and  suffering 
must  command  the  respect  of  all  right  thinking 
men.  Too  long  have  many  Christians  neglected 
the  just  grievances  of  the  toiling  and  suffering 
classes,  and  all  must  welcome  a  movement  in 
favour  of  Christian  social  reform.     But  in  taking 

"After  this"  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  the  Reverend 
writer  going  on  to  tell  how  all  "reactionary  survivals  were 
hushed  when  the  Professor  (Burkitt)  ended  his  speech  with 
what  was  really  a  scathing  and  prophetic  denunciation  of 
organized  Christianity."  That  disorganized  Christianity 
should  ally  itself  with  SociaUsm  is,  after  all,  not  so  very  sur- 
prising. 


SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIAN   SOCIALISTS     209 

to  Socialism  the  clergymen  in  question  are  making 
an  alliance  with  a  power  which  they  cannot  control 
and  which  must  eventually  control  them.  And 
in  doing  this,  are  they  not  rejecting  the  mighty 
forces  of  social  reform  which  Christianity  has 
placed  in  their  hands  ? 

There  is  something  pathetic  in  the  way  in 
which  "Christian  Sociahsts"  are  making  efforts 
to  ingratiate  themselves  with  organized  bodies 
of  men  who  take  no  pains  to  conceal  their  hatred 
of  Christianity.  "Everywhere  the  aid  of  the 
Christian  Socialist  League  was  warmly  welcomed 
by  our  brethren  ...  of  the  S.  D.  P.,"  says  a  report 
of  the  Salford  Branch  of  the  Christian  Socialist 
League.  {Church  Socialist  Quarterly,  January, 
1909.) 

"Our  brethren  of  the  S.  D.  P  !"  True,  all  men 
are  our  brethren,  —  or  let  us  say  our  brotliers, 
since  we  are  reminded  of  the  witty  definition, 
Brethren:  "an  ecclesiastical  noun  of  multitude, 
no  connection  with  brother."  But  this  does  not 
mean  that  we  should  be  ready  to  assimilate 
all  men's  methods  or  share  their  eccentricities. 
Now  the  C.  S.  L.  is  only  too  anxious  to  cooper- 
ate with  the  S.  D.  P.  as  a  society.  We  have 
already  seen  something  of  the  S.  D.  P.  and  its 
assiduous  railings  at  Christianity.     How  does  it 


210  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

reciprocate  these  touching  marks  of  affection  and 
confidence  ?     Let  us  hear  its  leaders. 

"  Lastly,  one  word  on  that  singular  hybrid,  the 
'Christian  Socialist.'  .  .  .  The  association  of 
Christianism  with  any  form  of  Socialism  is  a 
mystery,  rivalling  the  mysterious  combination  of 
ethical  and  other  contradictions  in  the  Christian 
divinity  itself"  (sic  !).  (Belfort  Bax, ''  The  Ethics 
of  Socialism,"  p.  52.) 

Christianity,  according  to  Mr.  H.  M.  Hynd- 
man,  the  founder  of  the  S.  D.  P.,  is  practically  a 
dead  creed.  Socialism  is  the  only  religion  left. 
(Vide  Daily  Express,  Feb.  1,  1908.) 

These  are  scarcely  the  words  of  a  man  who 
welcomes  the  aid  of  Christians  as  such. 

The  workingman  is  being  taught  in  popular 
pamphlets  to  reject  any  Christian  flavour  in  his 
Socialism  if  he  would  have  the  real  article.  Sen- 
tences such  as  the  following  are  not  unfrequently 
to  be  met  with  in  socialistic  literature  :  — 

"  Let  us  make  a  stand  against  this  persistent 
hankering  after  a  Christian  sanction  for  a  system 
which  carries  its  own  sanction  with  it."  ("Was 
Jesus  a  Socialist  ?  "  by  James  Leatham.  Twentieth 
Century  Press.) 

This  protest  is  no  novelty;  but  Christian 
Socialists  persist  in  shutting  their  ears  to  it,  or 


SOCIALISM    AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     211 

ascribing  to  it  a  confusion  of  ideas  in  the  social- 
ist mind.  We  fear  that  the  mental  confusion  lies 
elsewhere.  They  must  recognize  that  the  French 
are  a  logical  people,  so  let  me  quote  them  some 
words  of  M.  Millerand  :  — 

"  Socialism  offers  to  our  appetite  for  justice  and 
goodness  a  purely  human  ideal  completely  dis- 
engaged from  all  dogma,  and  thus  distinct,  with- 
out possibility  of  confusion  from  Christian  Social- 
ism."    ("  Disc,  de  Saint-Mand^.") 

Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  "Christian  Social- 
ists" have  made  any  contribution  to  the  cause  of 
Socialism  except  in  so  far  as  they  have  increased 
the  number  of  its  adherents  by  blinding  their 
spiritual  charges  to  the  real  questions  at  issue. 
The  socialist  leaders  want  votes,  and  they  will 
sometimes  conceal  their  contempt  of  their  clerical 
allies  in  order  to  use  the  latter  as  a  cat's-paw  by 
which  to  reach  churchgoers.  But  with  the  ex- 
ception of  those  cases  in  which  their  Christianity 
has  completely  evaporated  under  the  action  of 
their  Socialism,  the  Christian  Socialists  have  con- 
tributed little  or  nothing  to  the  thought  of  the 
movement.  It  must  be  confessed  that  their 
economics  and  sociology  commonly  inspire  as 
little  confidence  as  their  theology. 

Let  me  repeat  once  more  that  I  am  speaking 


212  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

of  the  "Christian  Socialist,"  and  not  of  those  Chris- 
tian social  reformers  who  sometimes  complicate  an 
already  confused  problem  by  calling  themselves 
Socialists,  while  expressly  disavowing  the  funda- 
mental tenets  of  Socialism.  Long  ago,  at  the 
Church  Congress  of  1890,  the  Bishop  of  Durham 
in  his  paper  on  "Socialism"  said  that  he  would 
"venture  to  employ  it  [the  term  Socialism]  apart 
from  its  historical  associations,"  and  then  pro- 
ceeded to  make  it  a  mere  synonym  for  cooperation. 
The  Bishop  might,  of  course,  employ  the  term  in 
any  sense  he  liked ;  but  what  is  the  use  of  attempt- 
ing to  give  a  new  meaning  to  a  word  which  stands 
for  a  definite  historical  movement.  Other  Angli- 
can bishops  have,  unfortunately,  taken  the  same 
line.  They  have  declared  themselves  Socialists,  — 
but  added  that  they  do  not  believe  in  the  transfer 
of  all  the  means  of  production  to  the  community. 
The  result  of  this  trifling  has  been  that  many  social- 
ist clergymen  to-day  are  willing  to  throw  them- 
selves at  the  heads  of  any  organized  bodies 
labelled  with  the  name  of  Socialist.  They  are  ready, 
as  the  Rev.  Stewart  Headlam  says,  "to  unite  with 
Socialists  of  every  sort,"  no  matter,  apparently, 
how  definitely  anti-Christian  those  Socialists  may 
be  in  their  methods  and  aims.  Yet  they  "  ought 
to  be  aware,"  as  Mr.  Roosevelt  has  written  in  the 


SOCIALISM  AXD   CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     213 

Outlook,  "of  the  pornographic  propaganda  of  the 
movement." 

"This  attitude  of  ignorance  and  confusion  on 
the  part  of  the  Church  of  England,"  writes  Mr. 
Geoffrey  Drage,  M.P.,  "is  in  marked  contrast  to 
the  expressed  opposition  of  the  Catholic  Church." 
("The  Labour  Problem,"  p.  380.) 

But  let  me  pass  to  my  second  and  more  serious 
criticism  of  the  Christian  Socialists.  Not  only  are 
they  incapable  of  deflecting  English  Socialism, 
but  they  have  effaced  from  their  own  teaching 
those  very  characteristics  which  make  Christianity 
a  great  social  power.  Not  only  is  their  Socialism 
feeble,  but  their  Christianity  is  eviscerated. 

For  these  Christian  Socialists,  whatever  be 
their  measure  of  good  faith,  are  effectively  be- 
traying the  cause  of  Christianity.  They  are  putting 
forward  as  Christianity  a  view  of  Christ's  mission 
and  teaching  which  is  directly  contradictory  to  the 
Gospels,  and  is  repudiated  by  the  voice  of  Christian 
tradition.  Of  their  appeal  to  the  example  of  the 
early  Church  and  to  the  Fathers  I  shall  have  some- 
thing to  say  presently.  Let  me  first  examine 
their  account  of  the  Gospel  message.  It  will  not 
be  difficult  to  show  that  they  have  robbed  that 
message  of  its  deepest  truth,  and  deprived  it  of 
those  very  characteristics  which  have  been  the 
secret  of  its  power. 


214  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Let  me  begin  by  sketching,  in  the  simplest  way, 
the  purport  of  Christ's  teaching  as  it  is  revealed 
in  the  New  Testament  and  expounded  by  the 
voice  of  tradition.  I  shall  not  go  beyond  the 
substance  of  the  penny  catechism  familiar  to 
every  child  in  a  Catholic  elementary  school. 

Jesus  Christ,  the  Second  Person  of  the  Blessed 
Trinity,  made  man  and  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
is  our  Redeemer.  He  came  on  earth  ''to  redeem 
us  from  sin  and  hell  and  to  show  us  the  way  to 
heaven."  Man  in  consequence  of  the  Fall  had 
come  under  God's  disfavour.  He  had  forfeited 
the  gifts  given  to  Adam,  including  that  chief 
gift  by  which  he  was  raised  from  the  condition 
of  servant  to  that  of  a  son  of  God.  A  divine  sat- 
isfaction was  required  to  redress  the  balance. 
Such  satisfaction  was  found  in  the  death  of  Christ. 
By  it  we  are  made  once  more  sons  of  God  and 
members  of  Christ's  mystical  body.  If  we  have 
faith  and  are  baptized,  we  are  restored  to  that  in- 
timate communion,  that  ineffable  friendship  with 
God,  of  which  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  our  souls  is  the  pledge  and  the  accomplishment. 

Christ  came  to  raise  the  human  race  to  a  su- 
pernatural life.  He  founded  a  Kingdom  —  the 
"Kingdom  of  God" — which  transcends  the 
material    kingdom    to    which   the    more  worldly 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     215 

minded  of  the  Jews  looked  forward.  His  King- 
dom was  to  be  consummated  in  Heaven,  but  it 
was  to  have  its  beginnings  on  earth.  It  was  to  be 
a  spiritual  Kingdom,  —  a  Kingdom  of  grace  here 
and  of  glory  hereafter ;  yet  it  was  to  have  its  visible 
expression  here  in  His  Church.  Hence  the  term 
is  sometimes  applied  to  the  consummated  and  glo- 
rious Kingdom  in  eternity,  sometimes  to  the  spirit- 
ual life  within  the  soul  which  lifts  men  to  this 
higher  order,  and  sometimes  again  to  the  visible 
Church,  the  Kingdom  on  earth. 

But  in  every  case  the  Kingdom  is  a  supernatural 
kingdom.  It  is  a  sphere  of  spiritual  blessing  and 
privilege.  It  demands  repentance  and  faith.  It 
is  "otherworldly,"  for  its  consummation  is  in 
Heaven,  —  though  the  securing  of  that  consum- 
mation involves  the  performance  of  duties  here 
on  earth. 

What,  then,  is  the  aim  of  the  whole  Christian 
dispensation?  What  is  the  purport  of  Christ's 
teaching  ?  It  is  to  make  of  the  individual  a  child 
of  God,  to  sanctify  his  soul,  to  unite  him  to  God, 
to  give  him  an  eternal  destination  and  help  him  to 
reach  it.  As  I  have  pointed  out  in  another  Con- 
ference, the  Christian  message  is  primarily  for  the 
individual  and  not  for  society.  Christianity  is 
democratic  in  this  high  sense  that  its  chief  stress 


216  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

is  on  the  priceless  value  of  the  individual.  And 
besides  being  a  message  to  the  individual,  it  is  a 
spiritual  message :  it  is  concerned  with  the  soul 
of  the  individual. 

Hence  its  chief  end  is  not  man's  well-being  on 
earth.  It  regards  temporal  progress  as  quite  in- 
significant except  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  means  to  ever- 
lasting life.  It  tells  us  that  man  has  not  here  an 
abiding  city,  and  that  this  life  is  a  test  and  a 
trial  for  a  life  hereafter  which  is  ineffably  more 
important. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  Christian  otherworld- 
liness  is  by  no  means  prejudicial  to  man's  temporal 
prosperity.  As  I  have  shown  in  another  Con- 
ference, the  deeper  our  faith  is  in  a  life  to  come,  the 
stronger  will  be  our  resolve  to  make  justice  reign 
in  the  world,  to  use  our  talents  for  the  common  good, 
to  relieve  misery  and  distress,  and  to  make  human 
existence  a  bright  and  beautiful  thing.  But  the 
point  to  notice  here  is  that  Christianity  from  first 
to  last,  Christianity  as  preached  by  Christ  and 
His  apostles,  by  saints  and  by  doctors  in  all  ages, 
is  concerned  first  and  foremost  with  man's  re- 
demption and  sanctification,  with  the  raising  of 
the  individual  to  a  sonship  with  God  which  shall 
be  revealed  only  in  the  life  to  come. 

The  Christian  Church  starts  with  its  belief  in 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     217 

the  fall  of  man  through  Adam,  and  in  his  redemp- 
tion through  Christ.  Socialism,  on  the  contrary, 
opens  its  campaign  with  the  philosophy  of  the  in- 
nate goodness  and  rightness  of  man,  teaching  that 
it  is  not  the  regeneration  of  man's  heart  but  of 
his  environment  that  is  most  of  all  needed  for  his 
emancipation  from  all  evil. 

Now,  then,  let  us  turn  to  the  "Christian  So- 
cialists" and  see  what  is  the  caricature  of  Chris- 
tianity upon  which  they  endeavour  to  base  their 
Socialism. 

"What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?  Whose  Son  is  he  ?" 
was  Our  Lord's  test  question.  Among  the  earli- 
est heresies  which  the  Church  had  to  strangle 
were  the  heresies  of  those  who  denied  that  Christ 
was  Divine,  the  Son  of  God,  sent  by  the  Father  to 
do  a  work  which  only  God  could  do. 

What  was  Christ's  work  and  mission  on  earth 
according  to  the  "Christian  Socialists "  ?  Do  they 
regard  it  as  a  supernatural  work  ? 

"It  is  extraordinary  (says  the  Rev.  Percy 
Dearmer,  in  Fabian  Tract  No.  133)  how  little  many 
Christian  people  realize  the  meaning  of  their  own 
religion  so  that  they  are  actually  shocked  very 
often  at  Socialism;  and  yet  all  the  while  Social- 
ism is  doing  just  the  very  work  which  they  have 
been  commanded  by  their  Master  to  do.     This 


218  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

fact  is  so  obvious  that  no  representative  and  re- 
sponsible Christian  body  can  be  found  to  deny 
it"  (p.  3). 

Mr.  Dearmer  apparently  does  not  regard  the 
Catholic  Church  as  a  ^'representative  and  re- 
sponsible Christian  body,"  for  he  must  know  that 
the  Catholic  Church  has  persistently  denied  that 
SociaUsm  is  doing  the  work  which  Christ  com- 
manded us  to  do. 

The  writer  then  proceeds  to  consider  what  he 
calls  the  ''central  features  of  Christianity,"  and 
endeavours  to  show  that  they  all  correspond  with 
Socialism. 

On  page  5  he  has  the  following  note :  — 

"Let  it  be  clearly  understood.  This  Tract  is 
not  written  to  belittle  the  Godward  side  of  reli- 
gion, or  to  condone  that  lack  of  spirituality  which 
is  too  common  already.  But  its  object  is  the 
duty  to  our  neighbour,  which  is  as  much  neglected 
as  the  duty  to  God." 

But  whatever  may  have  been  the  author's  in- 
tention in  writing  the  Tract,  the  Tract  itself  does 
clearly  belittle  "the  Godward  side  of  religion." 
Not  only  is  its  whole  stress  on  material  well-being, 
but  it  distinctly  conveys  the  impression  that 
material  well-being  is  the  ultimate  end  of  reli- 
gious effort.    Its  theme  is  not  duty  to  our  neighbour 


SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     219 

in  the  Christian  sense  (an  excellent  text  which 
much  needs  preaching)  but  duty  to  our  neighbour 
in  the  socialistic  sense.  By  an  ingenious  perver- 
sion of  scriptural  texts  it  reaches  the  conclusion 
that  'Christ's  work  on  earth  was  identical  with 
the  work  of  socialist  bodies. 

Christ,  we  are  told,  was  executed  ''because 
He  preached  revolutionary  doctrines"  (p.  4), — 
"the  Magnificat  was  a  revolutionary  hymn  "  (p.  7). 
"  St.  John  the  Baptist  told  the  people  to  practise 
communism."  He  did  ''just  what  Socialists  are 
trying  to  do"  (p.  5). 

I  may  observe  in  passing  that  I  have  not  yet 
met  with  any  Fabian  Tracts,  or  S.  D.  P.  pamphlets, 
which,  with  St.  John  the  Baptist,  invite  people 
to  confess  their  sins  and  do  penance.  Nor  is  his 
advice  to  be  content  with  one's  pay,  a  main 
plank  of  the  socialistic  platform.  St.  John 
wanted  to  moralize,  and  spiritualize,  existing  in- 
stitutions, not  to  sweep  them  away.  His  purpose 
was  to  change  men's  hearts  rather  than  their 
incomes.  He  makes  no  attacks  on  private  prop- 
erty, though  he  insists  on  its  responsibilities,  as 
the  Catholic  Church  has  always  done  and  contin- 
ues to  do  to-day. 

The  writer  then  goes  on  to  consider  the  "four 
most  prominent  forms"  of  Christ's  teaching, — 


220  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

His  Signs,  His  Parables,  His  Sermon,  and  His 
Prayer. 

As  to  Christ's  ''Signs"  we  are  told  that  "He 
devoted  a  large  part  of  His  time  to  fighting  against 
disease  and  premature  death"  (p.  6).  The  ex- 
pression "fighting  against"  is  one  which  will 
scarcely  commend  itself  to  a  believer  in  the  Divin- 
ity of  Christ.  It  suggests  a  limitation  of  Christ's 
omnipotence,  and  is  quite  inapplicable  to  the 
calm  majesty  of  the  Divine  Wonder-worker. 
And  to  say  that  He  "devoted  a  large  part  of  his 
time"  to  this  work  suggests  that  His  object  was 
confined  to  a  mere  humanitarian  alleviation  of 
temporal  misfortunes.  No  glimpse  is  offered  us 
of  the  deep  spiritual  meaning  of  Christ's  miracles 
of  healing,  —  of  His  constant  care  to  bring  out 
their  typical  reference  to  that  much  more  appall- 
ing evil,  —  sin. 

"Death  in  youth,"  continues  Mr.  Dearmer,  "is 
horrible,  and  so  are  sickness  and  deformity." 
True,  these  are  things  which  we  endeavour  to 
prevent.  They  are,  in  themselves,  physical  evils. 
But  to  call  them,  in  the  concrete,  necessarily 
"horrible"  shows  a  strange  insensibility  to  the 
real  values  of  life.  The  death  of  the  girl  martyr 
St.  Agnes  is  scarcely  "horrible"  to  the  Christian 
eye.    We  may  add  that  the  heroic  death  of  a 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     221 

young  soldier  is  not  commonly  called  ''horrible," 
even  by  those  who  are  not  Christians.  Sad  it 
may  be  ;  but  it  is  also  glorious.  If  St.  Paul  could 
glory  in  his  infirmities,  we  too,  amid  all  our  efforts 
to  relieve  pain  in  a  true  spirit  of  Christian  charity, 
may  yet  bless  the  mercy  of  God  which  will  not 
remove  all  pain  from  our  midst.  Given  our  pres- 
ent nature,  the  world  without  pain  would  not  be  a 
very  sympathetic  place  to  live  in.  It  is  suffering 
that  is  always  drawing  us  into  closer  union ;  it  is 
the  child's  cry  of  pain  which  brings  to  its  bedside 
the  mother  and  the  nurse.  With  no  pang  of  pain 
to  sound  the  alarm  the  doctor's  aid  might  be  all  too 
late. 

But  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dearmer's  Fabian  Tract  only 
reechoes  the  Rev.  Mr.  Headlam's  Fabian  Tract 
in  which  we  read :  — 

"The  death  of  a  child,  or  a  young  man,  or  a 
man  in  the  prime  of  life  —  that  is  a  monstrous,  a 
disorderly  thing ;  not  part  of  God's  order  for 
the  world,  but  the  result  of  wrong-doing  some- 
where or  other.  And  if  you  want  a  rough  de- 
scription of  the  object  of  Christian  Socialism,  I 
should  be  bold  to  say  that  it  was  to  get  rid  of  pre- 
mature death  altogether  "  (p.  3). 

If  my  readers  want  a  rough  description  of  the 
object  of  Christianity,  I  need  no  boldness  to  say 


222  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

that  it  is  to  get  rid  of  everlasting  death  altogether, 
and  to  help  all  men,  young  and  old,  to  meet  physi- 
cal death,  when  it  comes  to  them,  with  Christian 
faith  and  confidence.  The  mother  of  the  Mac- 
cabees would,  it  seems,  have  made  a  poor  Chris- 
tian Socialist ! 

But  we  must  follow  Mr.  Dearmer  a  little 
further :  — 

"  Our  English  Bible  calls  these  acts  miracles ; 
but  this  is  a  mistranslation  of  the  original  Greek, 
which  calls  them  signs  —  that  is,  significant  acts." 

The  English  Bible  as  a  matter  of  fact  also  calls 
them  signs,  —  and  the  original  Greek  has  various 
terms  for  them  which  justify  our  calling  them 
strictly  miracles.  But  the  point  to  notice  here 
is  that  the  writer  gains  nothing  at  all  by  calling 
them  ''signs."  For  a  sign,  as  he  himself  points 
out,  is  a  significant  act.  Now  by  reducing  Christ's 
miracles  to  the  level  of  humanitarian  healings 
he  robs  them  of  all  their  significance.  Christ 
wrought  miracles  —  ''signs"  —  to  prove  His  di- 
vine mission,  and  not  merely  to  remove  physical 
suffering.  This  is  their  significance.  Yet  Mr. 
Dearmer  continues :  — 

"  All  sanitary  and  social  reform  is  but  carrying 
out  on  a  larger  scale  the  signs  which  Our  Lord 
wrought  for  our  example  "  (p.  6). 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCLA.LISTS     223 

This  is  amazing !  But  it  does  not  stand  alone. 
Let  us  turn  back  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Headlam's 
Fabian  Tract.  There  we  read,  on  pages  6  and  7, 
the  following :  — 

"  The  Christian  Church,  therefore,  is  intended  to 
be  a  society  .  .  .  mainly  and  chiefly  [italics  ours] 
for  doing  on  a  large  scale  throughout  the  world 
those  secular  socialistic  works  which  Clirist  did 
on  a  small  scale  in  Palestine." 

Any  Catholic  child  in  an  elementary  school 
would  reply,  with  the  Christian  saints  and  doctors 
of  all  ages,  that  the  Church  exists  mainly  and 
chiefly  for  nothing  of  the  sort.  The  Catholic 
child  would  tell  Mr.  Headlam  that  it  was  the 
mission  of  Christ's  Church  first  of  all  to  teach  the 
Divinity  of  the  Teacher,  and  then,  and  as  a  conse- 
quence of  it,  the  infallible  character  of  His  teaching. 
The  child  would  know  what  Mr.  Headlam  does 
not,  that  the  Christian  Church  is  chiefly  concerned 
with  the  spiritual  welfare  of  its  children  though 
their  material  well-being  concerns  it  no  less. 

Mr.  Dearmer  displays  a  similar  perversity  in 
his  account  of  the  Parables  of  Christ. 

"  And  here  I  would  point  out  the  meaning  of  a 
whole  series  which  are  called  the  '  Parables  of  the 
Kingdom.'  They  expressly  confute  the  common 
notion  that  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  something 


224  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

only  in  the  next  world,  and  that  men  are  set  only 
to  save  what  Kingsley  called  'their  own  dirty 
souls'"   (p.  7). 

True,  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  has  its  beginnings 
in  this  world,  and  we  have  to  help  to  save  the 
souls  and  bodies  of  our  neighbours  as  well  as  our 
own.  It  is  natiu-al,  top,  that  the  earthly  phase 
of  the  Kingdom  should  be  most  prominent  in  the 
Parables.  But  the  Parables  by  no  means  confute 
the  Christian  notion  that  man's  doings  in  this 
world  derive  their  chief  importance  from  their 
bearing  on  the  next.  As  for  Kingsley's  phrase 
about  men  saving  ''their  own  dirty  souls,"  it  is, 
if  we  take  it  seriously,  an  offensive  piece  of  ir- 
reverence against  the  solemn  words  of  Christ  Oiir 
Lord,  —  "What  doth  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gains 
the  whole  world  and  suffers  the  loss  of  his  own 
soul  ?  "  Was  it  not  for  the  priceless  individual  soul 
that  our  Saviour  lived,  bled,  and  died  and  rose 
again? 

The  phrase,  "the  Kingdom  of  God,"  is  one 
which  is  frequently  employed  by  Christian  So- 
cialists as  an  equivalent  of  the  socialist  State. 
The  new  precursors  of  the  Kingdom  may  be  men 
who  are  filled  with  the  bitterest  hatred  of  Chris- 
tianity, —  blasphemers  to  whom  St.  Paul  would 
have  given  short  shrift.    That  does  not  distress 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     225 

the  Christian   Socialist.     Let  us  hear  the  Rev. 
R.  J.  Campbell :  — 

"  I  am  rather  keen  on  Robert  Blatchford.  I  have 
an  impression  that  he  has  done  high  service  for 
England.  He  has  preached  the  Kingdom  of  God." 
("The  New  Theology  and  the  Socialist  Move- 
ment," p.  9.) 

Mr.  Blatchford  (who  does  not  believe  in  God) 
may  well  ask  to  be  saved  from  his  friends  ! 

This  socialistic  use  of  the  term,  ''Kingdom  of 
God, "  is  commonly  a  mere  piece  of  empty  rhetoric 
for  which  not  a  word  of  historical  justification  is 
offered.  But  sometimes,  on  the  other  hand,  at- 
tempts are  actually  made  to  find  in  the  Bible  a 
justification  for  it. 

Such  writers  start  from  the  old  Theocracy  and 
argue  from  the  detailed  legislation  thereof  to  the 
nature  of  the  Kingdom  which  Christ  came  to 
found.  Their  fundamental  mistake  is  the  assump- 
tion that  the  Theocracy  was  a  first  stage  of  the 
Kingdom.  Really  it  is  sharply  distinguished 
against  it:  "The  Law  and  the  Prophets  were 
until  John:  from  that  time  the  Kingdom  of  God 
shall  be  preached."  There  is  indeed  a  relation 
between  them,  but  it  is  merely  that  of  type  and 
anti-type,  the  two  being  on  completely  different 
planes. 


226  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

I  must  be  allowed  to  dwell  in  this  matter  for  a 
space,  since  the  mistake  just  alluded  to  is  at  the 
root  of  much  wild  talk  among  Christian  Socialists 
about  the  realization  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

In  the  Theocracy  God  was  the  immediate  and 
personal  Ruler  of  the  State,  the  Head  of  the  civil 
government.  Like  any  other  wise  legislator  He 
laid  down  a  number  of  positive  laws  to  meet  the 
special  needs  of  that  time  and  people.  Included 
among  these  were  the  laws  concerning  land  tenure 
on  which  some  socialist  writers  lay  much  stress. 
But  of  the  three  classes  of  laws,  judicial,  ceremonial, 
and  moral,  for  which  there  was  divine  sanction  in 
the  days  of  the  Theocracy,  only  one,  the  moral, 
has  a  direct  relation  to  the  end  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Christ,  —  the  '^Ecclesia"  of  those  who  are  by 
divine  adoption  the  sons  of  God.  The  judicial  and 
ceremonial  laws  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation  passed 
away  with  the  old  order.  Indeed,  purely  economic 
legislation  was  bound  to  change  with  varying 
economic  conditions  of  life.  The  law,  for  in- 
stance, of  the  Year  of  Jubilee,  an  example  on  which 
some  stress  has  been  laid,  has  no  more  a  place  in 
the  unchangeable  moral  order  instituted  by  God, 
than  has  the  precept  against  eating  the  hare  or 
the  screech-owl,  which  also  belongs  to  the  positive 
law  of  the  Theocracy. 


SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     227 

Still  more  futile  is  the  attempt  to  find  a  social- 
istic basis  for  the  Kingdom  in  the  denunciations 
of  the  Prophets.  The  prophet  Isaias,  a  special 
favourite  of  the  Christian  Sociahsts,  thunders 
against  the  oppression  of  the  poor  (any  Catholic 
child  could  tell  them  that  this  is  one  of  the  "four 
sins  crying  to  Heaven  for  vengeance"),  but  the 
oppression  in  question  is  the  flagrant  violation 
of  the  ordinary  principles  of  justice  as  recognized 
ahke  by  Sociahst  or  individualist.  I  will  quote 
some  of  the  passages  which  are  brought  forward  in 
support  of  socialistic  tenets  :  — 

"  The  princes  are  faithless,  companions  of  thieves ; 
they  all  love  bribes,  they  run  after  rewards. 
They  judge  not  for  the  fatherless  and  the  widow's 
cause  Cometh  not  into  them"  (i.  23). 

''Wo  to  them  that  make  wicked  laws,  and  when 
they  write,  write  injustice :  to  oppress  the  poor 
in  judgment  and  do  violence  to  the  cause  of  the 
humble  of  my  people  :  that  widows  might  be  their 
prey  and  that  they  might  rob  the  father- 
less"  (x.  1,2). 

The  rich  and  the  ruling  classes  used  a  corrupt 
judicature  to  rob  and  oppress  the  poor.  It  needs 
the  vivid  imagination  of  a  Socialist  to  see  in  the 
invectives  of  the  Prophets  against  this  horrible 
sin  a  divine  warrant  for  Socialism. 


228  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

Of  a  further  type  of  Christian  Socialism  we 
need  take  little  notice  here,  in  that  it  has  no  claim 
to  the  title  ''Christian"  as  that  word  is  ordinarily 
understood.  We  have  an  example  of  this  in 
Rev.  R.  J.  Campbell's  book,  ''Christianity  and  the 
Social  Order."  The  author  denies  to  Our  Lord 
any  object  whatsoever  save  that  of  material  re- 
form. The  one  essential  message  of  Jesus,  the 
message  of  the  supernatural  life,  of  the  "one  thing 
necessary, "  he  not  only  ignores,  but  even  denies  its 
existence.  Our  Lord  had  no  thought  of  a  life 
beyond  the  tomb;  He  was  concerned  only  with 
the  future  of  men  on  earth.  His  answer  to  the 
Pharisees  who  asked,  to  which  of  the  seven  hus- 
bands she  had  successively  the  woman  should 
belong  "m  the  resurrection,"  is  thus  commented 
on  by  Mr.  Campbell :  — 

"  He  even  seems  to  have  thought  that  marriage 
and  procreation  would  be  at  an  end  with  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  although 
that  estabhshment  was  to  take  place  on  earth." 

Sin  as  between  man  and  God  is,  to  this  writer, 
a  figment  of  the  theological  imagination.  The 
only  sin  that  would  seem  to  be  recognized  by  Jesus 
is  selfishness. 

There  is  no  serious  attempt  at  proof.  Mr. 
Campbell   accepts   as   unquestionable   the   more 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     229 

extreme  conclusions  of  the  German  rationalists, 
and  simply  ignores  all  the  supernatural  side  of 
our  Saviour's  personality  and  teaching.  How  sad 
it  is  that  he  appears  to  be  incapable  of  rising  to 
anything  higher  than  the  world  of  sense. 

To  me  it  seems  unnecessary  to  discuss  a  system 
built  upon  such  premisses.  Whatever  may  be 
said  for  it  on  economic  grounds,  it  certainly  does 
not  merit  the  epithet  "Christian,"  since  its  very 
foundation  is  the  denial  of  all  that  is  best  and 
highest  in  Christianity. 

Let  us  return,  therefore,  to  the  more  typical 
''Christian  SociaHst"  who  retains  at  least  some 
faint  belief  in  the  supernatural  nature  of  our  reli- 
gion, though  he  is  for  ever  readjusting  her  dog- 
matic attitude  toward  it  at  the  dictation  of  the 
so-called  higher  critics.  As  with  the  dogmatic, 
so  with  the  moral  teaching  of  Our  Lord,  he  seems 
never  in  the  repose  of  certitude.  His  life  is  on 
quicksand,  not  on  the  rock. 

This  type  of  Christian  Socialist  will  tell  us  that 
the  early  Church  was  socialistic,  and  that  the 
Fathers  inculcated  pure  Socialism.  The  same  sup- 
posed fact  is  also  alleged  by  SociaHsts  who  are  not 
Christians,  —  sometimes  by  way  of  reproach 
against  Christians  who  refuse  to  become  Socialists, 
sometimes  with  a  view  to  enlisting  their  sympathy. 


230  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Let  us  examine  these  supposed  facts.  And  first 
as  to  the  early  Church. 

The  matter  can  be  settled  very  simply.  We 
have  but  to  glance  at  the  Acts  to  find  that,  not 
only  was  the  practice  of  sharing  goods  confined 
to  Jerusalem,  but  that  it  was  not  imposed  upon 
any  one.  It  was  perfectly  spontaneous,  as  the 
story  of  Ananias  lets  us  see.  Ananias  was  not 
punished  for  keeping  his  land  ("Was  it  not 
still  in  thy  power?"  asks  St.  Peter);  he  was 
punished  for  telling  a  lie.  To  sell  one's  property 
and  give  the  proceeds  to  the  poor  is  still  a  course 
which  the  Church  will  encourage.  But  she  will 
not,  and  she  never  did,  enjoin  it. 

''But,"  urge  the  Christian  Socialists,  "the 
early  Fathers  of  the  Church  taught  SociaHsm." 
I  reply  that  the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church 
taught  nothing  of  the  kind.  They  taught  the 
doctrine  of  their  Master,  and  no  other. 

True,  they  say  strong  things  about  the  duty  of 
almsgiving.  They  speak  out  boldly  in  defence 
of  the  poor  and  suffering ;  they  upbraid  the  rich 
for  their  cruelty  and  selfishness.  But  this  has 
been  done  by  Christian  preachers  in  every  age. 
I  will  undertake  to  find  denunciations  hardly  less 
vigorous  in  the  writings  of  Cardinal  Manning  or 
Bishop   Ketteler,  —  nay,   in   those   of  Pope   Leo 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     231 

XIII  and  many  another  Roman  pontiff.  On 
this  matter  much  has  already  been  said.  My 
point  here  is  that  you  will  not  find  in  the  WTitings 
of  the  Fathers  any  support  for  Socialism,  —  un- 
less, indeed,  you  adopt  the  usual  socialist  device 
of  wresting  isolated  sentences  from  their  context 
and  leaving  out  inconvenient  phrases.  Certain 
such  hoary  extracts  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  passed 
on  from  one  socialist  writer  to  another.  Let  me 
give  an  instance  or  two. 

We  shall  find  two  famiUar  quotations  from  the 
Fathers  in  the  Fabian  Tract  which  I  have  selected 
as  a  fair  sample  of  Christian  Socialist  argument. 

"Notice,  for  instance,"  says  Mr.  Dearmer, 
"how  Tertullian  appeals  to  the  Socialism  of  the 
Church  as  a  thing  which  can  be  taken  for  granted 
and  which  excites  the  wrath  of  the  pagan  world." 
He  then  quotes  from  the  thirty-ninth  chapter  of 
that  writer's  Apology  :  — 

"And  they  [the  pagans]  are  angry  with  us  for 
calling  each  other  brethren.  .  .  .  The  very  thing 
which  commonly  puts  an  end  to  brotherhood 
among  you  [pagans],  viz.  family,  property,  is  just 
that  upon  the  community  of  which  our  brother- 
hood depends.  And  so  we  who  are  one  in  mind 
and  soul,  have  no  hesitation  in  sharing  our  posses- 
sions with  each  other." 


232  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

But  we  have  only  to  read  the  rest  of  the  chapter 
in  order  to  see  that  TertulHan  is  not  talking  about 
SociaHsm  or  anytliing  hke  it.  For  he  gives  a  de- 
tailed description  of  how  this  mutual  help  among 
the  Christians  was  bestowed.  He  is  careful  to 
explain  that  each  one  gave  to  the  common  fund 
''when  he  wished  and  only  if  he  wished  and  if  he 
could  "  {quum  velit,  et  si  modo  velit,  et  si  modo  possit) . 
There  was  no  compulsion  {Nemo  compellitur  sed 
sponte  confert).  How  on  earth  can  this  common 
Christian  procedure  be  called  Socialism?  It  is 
no  more  socialistic  than  the  modern  poor-rate,  or 
the  Sunday  ofTertory.  You  must  not,  hke  Jules 
Blois,  Anatole  France,  Sabatier,  and  Renan,  read 
your  own  meaning  into  the  lives  of  others.  You 
must  take  the  clear  and  obvious  interpretation 
of  their  Uves  and  writings. 

Again,  Mr.  Dearmer  writes  {I.e.,  p.  21, 
note) :  — 

"Prudhon's  famous  saying  that  'property  is 
robbery,'  was  anticipated  1600  years  ago  by  St. 
Ambrose:  'Nature  therefore  created  common 
right.  Usurpation  made  private  right '  ('De  Off.,' 
I,  28)." 

This  passage  (like  many  similar  ones  to  be  found 
in  the  writings  of  Fathers  and  Schoolmen)  is  a 
positive  pitfall  for  the  Sociahst  who  will  not  take 


SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIAN   SOCIALISTS     233 

the  trouble  to  ascertain  its  meaning,  ''Nature" 
here,  as  so  often,  refers  to  the  original  dispensation 
of  God,  the  order  in  which  Adam  was  set  before 
the  Fall.  Original  sin  shattered  that  order,  and  a 
new  order  had  to  be  set  up  in  its  place.  Private 
property  was  introduced,  with  God's  sanction. 
St.  Ambrose  does  not  say  that  "usurpation"  made 
private  right.  He  says  usurpatio  made  it.  But 
the  Latin  word  usurpatio  means  "  frequent  use  and 
possession"  no  less  than  usurpation.  Why  does 
Mr.  Dearmer  ignore  those  other  meanings  of  the 
word  ?  St.  Ambrose,  while  reminding  the  rich  of 
their  duties,  explicitly  vindicates  the  rights  of  pri- 
vate property.  Evidently  Mr.  Dearmer  has  not 
read  the  subHmely  eloquent  treatise, ''  De  Nabuthe 
lezraehta,"  in  which  the  holy  Bishop  speaks  of 
Naboth  the  Jezrahelite  and  the  vineyard  of  which 
King  Achab  wanted,  at  any  cost,  to  get  possession. 

Once  more,  SociaHsts  are  fond  of  pointing  to 
the  Religious  Orders,  and  claiming  them  as  con- 
crete examples  of  Socialism. 

It  is  true  that  from  some  points  of  view  a  reli- 
gious order  may  be  called  socialistic,  or  rather 
communistic.  But  it  differs  from  Socialism,  as 
commonly  propounded,  in  several  important  par- 
ticulars, with  the  result  that  it  forms  no  precedent 
from  which  the  modern  Socialist  may  argue.     The 


234  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

religious  rule  is  based  upon  the  religious  vows,  and 
is  quite  incapable  of  general  application.  Reli- 
gious orders  consist  of  men  or  women  who  volun- 
tarily cut  themselves  off  from  family  life,  com- 
mercial pursuits,  and  the  like,  in  order  to  devote 
themselves  to  the  sanctification  of  themselves  and 
their  neighbours.  Cornparatively  few  make  suit- 
able candidates  for  a  religious  order.  A  long  and 
severe  training  tests  the  capacity  of  each.  Those 
who,  after  such  training,  voluntarily  elect  to  join 
the  order,  find  the  hfe  tolerable,  not  because  it  is 
naturally  pleasant,  but  because  it  is  supernaturally 
satisfying.  Even  these  may  sometimes  discover 
that  community  life  is,  after  all,  too  great  a  strain 
upon  them,  and  may  apply  to  the  Holy  See  for  a 
dispensation  from  their  vows,  and  return  once  more 
to  a  life  in  which  not  so  much  is  required  of  them. 
True,  there  is  much  happiness  in  religious  orders. 
Those  who  have  had  a  ghmpse  of  the  life,  and  do 
not  form  their  estimate  of  it  from  sensational 
paragraphs  in  the  gutter  press  about  ''escaped 
nuns,"  often  look  wistfully  and  half  enviously 
at  the  serene  and  satisfying  atmosphere  of  a 
monastery  or  a  convent,  the  delicate  charity,  the 
absence  of  sordid  cares,  the  security,  and  the  hope 
to  be  found  there.  That  is  all  true.  But  the  se- 
cret of  this  happiness  does  not  he  in  the  economic 


SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISTS     235 

arrangements  of  religious  orders.  It  comes  from 
their  spirit  of  renunciation  and  loving  service, 
without  which  life  in  reUgion  would  be  unendur- 
able. To  attempt  to  force  men  who  have  not 
this  spirit  into  the  severe  discipline  of  a  monastic 
institution  would  be  the  most  outrageous  tyranny. 
It  would  be  impossible  of  achievement.  Nothing 
but  strong  ambition  for  God's  glory,  and  zeal  for 
the  sanctification  of  souls ;  nothing  but  a  commu- 
nity of  spirit,  and  a  tremendous  personal  love  of 
Jesus  Christ,  could  make  it  possible  for  rehgious 
conununities  to  Hve  together  under  the  discipUne 
of  rule,  bearing  one  another's  burdens,  and  exer- 
cising mutual  patience  and  charity. 

We  have  seen  therefore  that  the  attempt  to 
base  Socialism  on  Christianity  breaks  down  all 
along  the  hne.  It  can  only  be  made  by  pervert- 
ing the  plain  sense  of  the  Gospels,  misinterpreting 
history,  and  ignoring  the  very  marked  charac- 
teristics of  SociaUsm  as  an  actual  movement. 

The  position  of  the  CathoHc  Church  in  the 
matter  has  been  clear  and  consistent.  She  has 
watched  the  socialist  movement  in  its  growth 
(as  she  has  watched  every  political  and  social 
movement  in  its  growth  for  nineteen  centuries), 
and  she  has  seen  it  developing  along  lines  which 
are    incompatible    with    Christian    beUefs    and 


236  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

standards.  She  definitely  tells  her  children  to 
keep  clear  of  it.  Unlike  the  Bishop  of  Durham, 
she  will  not  '^  venture  to  use  the  word  apart  from 
its  historical  associations"  —  for  she  knows  well 
to  what  confusion  of  ideas  such  a  twisting  of 
terminology  may  lead.  Eager  as  she  is  to  take 
her  part  in  social  reform  and  to  establish  a  Chris- 
tian Democracy,  she  will  not  call  her  efforts  by  the 
name  of  Socialism  or  allow  her  children  to  join 
socialist  bodies.  For  the  name  now  stands  for  a 
definite  movement  with  anti-Christian  implica- 
tions. It  is  idle  to  urge  that  the  name  denotes 
an  economic  theory  only  and  that  the  move- 
ment might  have  proceeded  on  Christian  lines. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  it  has  not  done  so,  and  we  must 
accept  the  facts  as  we  find  them.  For  the  same 
reason  the  Church  does  not  favour  the  use  of  the 
term  "Christian  Socialism,"  since  it  is  productive 
of  misunderstandings.  Leo  XIII  ("  Graves  de 
Communi")  observed  that  it  had  ''justly  fallen 
into  desuetude."  Let  us  define  our  terms  and 
know  what  we  are  speaking  about.  Let  us  not 
forget  that  Christianity  is  one  thing  and  Socialism 
another.  The  two  systems  work  in  opposite  di- 
rections, and  flow  into  different  termini.  Social- 
ism makes  for  a  Paradise  beneath  the  moon, 
Christianity  leads  to  a  Heaven  beyond  the  stars. 


VII 

SOCIALISM  AND  THE  RIGHTS  OF 
OWNERSHIP 

Society  rests  upon  a  triple  basis :  private 
property  is  its  material  basis,  the  family  is  its 
natural  basis,  and  religion  its  supernatural,  its 
divine  basis.  We  have  already  dealt  with  the 
question  of  the  Family  and  Religion.  We  pointed 
out  how  Socialism,  from  the  very  nature  of  its 
constitution,  is  destructive  of  that  sublime  crea- 
tion of  God,  the  family.  Socialists  who  are  true  to 
their  cause,  who  with  the  founders  of  their  cult, 
believe  in  the  material  conception  of  history, 
have  no  alternative  but  to  tilt  against  the  family 
as  it  has  been  understood  since  Christ  first  raised 
the  sacred  contract  between  man  and  woman  into 
a  divine  Sacrament,  thus  making  the  unity  and  in- 
dissolubility of  the  marriage  tie  the  very  condition 
of  the  stability,  unity,  and  harmony  of  the  State. 

Nor  can  Socialists  who  are   trained  efficiently 

in   the  ethics   of   their    school    tolerate  religion. 

For  them  Socialism  is  their  religion,  and  they  will 

have  none   other.     Indeed,   they   are   careful   to 

remind  us  that  in  Socialism  there  is  no  room  for 

237 


238  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

"starland  religion,"  that  the  only  religion  in 
which  the  Socialist  puts  his  trust  is  Democracy 
working  for  Democracy,  and  that  the  paradise 
for  which  he  is  striving  is  to  be  found  not  on  a 
star  map,  but  on  the  map  of  the  world  "right 
here."  Having  treated  of  the  divine  and  the 
natural  foundations  on  which  Society  depends  for 
its  unity,  harmony,  and  stability,  we  will  now 
proceed  to  speak  of  the  material  basis  on  which 
the  State  rests,  property. 

By  private  property  I  understand  man's  in- 
dividual sovereignty  over  his  acres,  his  home,  his 
capital,  his  goods  and  chattels,  his  inheritance. 

Among  all  civilized  nations  private  ownership 
has  been  recognized,  and  in  all  civilized  nations 
private  ownership  has  been  protected  under  the 
triple  buckler  of  nature,  justice,  and  religion. 
Without  it  society  would  lose  its  chief  material 
support,  and  would  slide  away  like  a  house  under- 
mined by  a  landslip. 

Property,  then,  is  a  necessary  basis  of  society, 
which  could  not  exist  without  it.  By  it  the  family 
clings  to  the  native  soil  as  the  tree  to  the  earth  by 
its  roots.  All  nations  have  held  it  sacredly  in- 
violable ;  all  have  clung  to  it,  and  we  all  to-day  con- 
sider it  so  sacred  as  to  protect  it  with  our  very  lives ; 
we  consider  it  so  just  that  any  violation  of  it  on 


SOCIALISM   AND    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     239 

our  part  would  beget  within  us  bitter  remorse, 
which  nothing  but  restitution  could  allay.  Such 
being  the  case,  how  can  any  man  contest  a 
right  so  legitimate,  so  sacred  to  humanity  ?  How 
in  the  full  splendour  of  this  twentieth-century  civili- 
zation, with  the  sanction  of  all  ages,  of  all  schools, 
all  magistrates,  all  governments,  and  all  religions, 
can  men  who  proclaim  themselves  civilized  call  in 
question  the  right  of  private  productive  property  ? 
"Far  from  attacking  private  property,  we  ought 
to  defend  it.  Far  from  suppressing  it,  we  ought 
to  extend  it.  Yes ;  let  every  man  by  his  labour 
and  thrift,  his  earnings  and  savings,  economy  and 
virtue,  attain  this  sovereignty  wherewith  he  is 
endowed  by  the  right  of  private  property.  The 
ambition  to  possess  and  own  something  is  a  noble 
ambition,  even  though  it  extended  only  to  a  parcel 
of  land  which  he  must  fructify  by  the  sweat  of 
his  brow,  and  may  transmit  by  inheritance  to  his 
children.  To  suppress  private  property  because 
some  may  and  have  abused  it  is  a  stupid  aberration. 
Is  there  anything  that  men  may  not  and  have  not 
abused?  Then  suppress  everything,  even  bread 
and  meat,  for  there  are  some  who  dig  their  graves 
with  their  teeth.  But  to  attempt  to  equahze 
all  men,  even  the  idler  and  lazy  drone,  the 
spendthrift,  the  drunkard,  and  the  gambler,  and 


240  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

cry  out  before  that  crowd,  '  Property  is  theft ! ' 
this  is  not  simply  an  error ;  it  is  a  crime  against 
society ;  it  is  shaking  the  material  basis  whereon 
society  rests." 

Now  it  is  certain,  it  is  a  well-known  and  pal- 
pable fact  proclaimed  before  all  the  world,  that 
SociaHsm  denies  the  right  of  private  property.  It 
blocks  the  way  of  SociaHsm.  To  employ  the 
forcible  language  of  Frederick  Engels:  "Three 
great  obstacles  block  the  way  of  Socialism,  — 
private  property,  rehgion,  and  the  present  form  of 
marriage."  Sociahsm  proposes  to  transfer  private 
productive  property  from  the  individual  to  the 
Cooperative  Commonwealth.  It  is  a  theory  ac- 
cording to  which  people  would  be  happier  and 
better  were  the  means  of  production  thus  trans- 
ferred. In  the  concrete  it  is  associated  with  other 
theories ;  but  in  the  abstract  "  SociaHsm  is  a  theory 
chiefly  concerned  with  property,  and  nothing  else." 

There  is  a  tendency  amongst  economic  Liberals 
and  Socialists  alike  to  apply  the  name  SociaHsm 
to  any  proposals  for  the  public  control  of  par- 
ticular means  of  production.  A  Catholic  who 
favours  the  nationalization  of  railways  wiH  be 
called  a  SociaHst.  A  Conservative  who  suggests 
the  municipalization  of  tramways  is  liable  to  be 
denounced  by  some  of  his  colleagues  as  a  Social- 


SOCIALISM   AND   RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     241 

ist.  Indeed,  any  effort  to  improve  the  social  con- 
dition of  the  people  is  sure  to  be  called  socialistic. 
When  the  Archbishop  of  Paris  recently  exerted 
his  influence  to  protect  the  apprentices  in  the 
barbers'  shops,  his  action  was  at  once  labelled 
Sociahsm  by  a  section  of  the  foreign  press.  An 
Employers'  Liability  Act  is  called  Socialism  by 
liberal  Economists  who  disapprove  of  it.  An  Old 
Age  Pensions  Act  is  called  Sociahsm  by  Socialists 
who  welcome  it. 

Again,  the  immediate  practical  proposals  of, 
let  us  say,  a  Catholic  leader  in  Germany,  may  bear 
a  striking  resemblance  to  the  immediate  practical 
proposals  of  an  English  socialist  leader.  Yet  the 
latter  proposals  are  socialistic,  while  the  former  are 
not.     There  is  a  yawning  chasm  between  them. 

Let  us  endeavour  to  cut  our  way  through  this 
confused  tangle  and  ascertain  what  Socialism 
really  is,  and  how  it  differs  from  Catholic  social 
reform. 

"We  may  take  Socialists  on  both  sides  of  the 
Atlantic  and  interrogate  them.  It  will  at  once 
be  seen  that,  although  they  may  agree  in  their 
immediate  programme,  yet  in  principle,  in  ul- 
timate aim,  in  their  general  outlook  upon  life, 
they  differ  profoundly  and  are  in  the  sharpest 
antagonism. 

R 


242  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

The  object  of  the  Socialist  is  to  get  rid  of 
private  capital.  He  regards  private  capital  as  a 
mischievous  thing,  unjust  in  origin  and  criminal 
in  results.  His  immediate  proposals  are  merely 
the  first  steps  towards  its  complete  abolition.  His 
ideal  is  the  absolute  transference  of  all  the  means 
of  production  to  the  State.  He  may  not  go  so 
far  as  to  say  with  Prudhon  that  "property  is 
robbery,"  —  though  the  saying  I  have  often  heard 
repeated  in  London  Parks,  in  New  York  Avenues, 
and  in  miners'  camps  out  West.  He  may  not 
charge  all  capitalists  of  formal  injustice,  but 
he  regards  the  system  of  private  capitalism  as 
essentially  rotten.  It  must  go  —  peaceably  or 
violently.  Private  capital  is  an  excrescence  or  a 
morbid  growth  in  the  history  of  man :  or,  at  the 
very  least,  it  is  a  phase  which  must  be  outgrown. 
It  is  not  permanent.  It  is  no  essential  part  of  the 
social  structure.  It  answers  to  no  deep-rooted 
and  ineradicable  demands  of  human  nature. 

The  Catholic,  on  the  other  hand,  if  he  really 
represents  the  sound  Catholic  tradition  (for  I  do 
not  deny  that  Catholics  may  be  tinged  with 
economic  Liberalism  or  bitten  with  Socialism  or 
—  oftener  still  —  in  a  state  of  muddle  about  the 
whole  matter)  —  the  Catholic,  I  say,  who  has 
grasped    Catholic    principles    and    has   sufficient 


SOCIALISM   AND    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     243 

knowledge  to  apply  them  to  modern  conditions 
may  be  inclined  to  admit  a  large  measure  of 
socialization  or  municipalization  of  certain  kinds 
of  property.  As  we  saw  in  our  Conference  on 
Socialism  and  the  State,  a  wide  increase  of  State 
action  may  be  admitted  and  even  demanded  on 
Catholic  principles. 

But  the  Catholic  has  principles,  and  these  prin- 
ciples are  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  doctrines 
of  SociaUsm.  The  Catholic  does  not  regard  the 
private  ownership  of  capital  as  something  un- 
natural, or  as  a  mere  accident  or  excrescence.  He 
regards  it  as  something  proper  and  normal  to  man  : 
something  which  is  necessary  for  social  harmony 
and  stabiUty,  and  for  the  satisfying  of  man's 
deepest  needs. 

The  Catholic  will  favour  many  measures  which 
tend  to  limit  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  own  capi- 
tal. But  he  does  so,  not  in  order  to  undermine 
that  right,  but  in  order  to  make  it  more  secure  and 
useful.  Catholic  principles  which  establish  the 
right  also  prescribe,  as  we  shall  see,  its  limitations. 
The  Catholic  strives  to  check  the  abuses  of  private 
capital,  the  Socialist  strives  to  abolish  private 
capital  altogether. 

There  is  all  the  difference  between  these  two 
points  of  view,  and  there  will  ultimately  be  all  the 


244  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

difference  between  the  kind  of  action  which  re- 
sults from  them.  The  Cathohc  limits  the  right 
of  ownership  in  order  to  make  it  more  effective. 
The  Socialist  limits  it  in  order  to  make  it  less  so. 
If  a  man  has  a  troublesome  tooth  which  causes 
him  pain  and  upsets  his  health,  he  will  go  to  a 
dentist  and  have  it  out.  In  the  Middle  Ages  the 
extraction  of  teeth  was  not  always  remedial.  It 
was  sometimes  punitive.  A  man  might  have  his 
teeth  drawn  not  because  he  was  in  pain,  but  in 
order  that  he  might  be  put  in  pain.  The  ex- 
traction was  not  a  step  towards  curing  him,  but 
a  step  towards  killing  him.  He  was  regarded  as 
an  objectionable  person  to  be  weakened  and 
brought  low  and  struck  at :  not  as  a  temporarily- 
ailing  person  to  be  made  strong  and  healthy.  In 
both  cases  the  operation  was  the  same:  the  ex- 
traction of  a  tooth  with  a  pair  of  pincers.  But 
who  will  class  the  modern  dentist  with  the  medi- 
seval  torturer  ?  Their  aims  differ,  and  it  is  merely 
an  accident  that  their  actual  procedure  is,  at  one 
stage,  alike.  Give  the  torturer  his  way  and  he 
will  not  only  pull  out  the  man's  teeth  but  take  off 
his  head.  Give  the  dentist  his  desire,  and  he 
will  save  the  tooth,  and  make  it  useful.  If  he 
cannot  save  it,  he  will  replace  it  by  another  both 
useful  and  good. 


SOCIALISM   AND   RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     245 

Hence,  before  we  can  call  a  man  who  advocates 
high  death  duties,  or  a  minimum  wage,  or  old  age 
pensions,  a  Socialist,  we  must  ask  a  few  questions. 
What  is  he  after?  What  is  his  next  proposal? 
How  is  this  proposal  related  to  his  general  views 
of  human  nature,  of  society,  of  government? 
Above  all,  what  is  his  attitude  towards  private 
capital,  —  towards  all  private  ownership  ? 

Now,  in  this  matter  of  private  capital,  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Socialist  is  clear.  He  has  his  principle, 
and  that  principle  is  no  mere  extension  of  any 
principle  admitted  by  Cathohcs.  To  quote  Mr. 
Belloc :  — 

"The  Principle  of  Socialism  is  that  the  means 
of  production  are  morally  the  property  not  of 
individuals  but  of  the  State :  that  in  the  hands 
of  individuals,  however  widely  diffused,  such  prop- 
erty exploits  the  labour  of  others,  and  that  such 
exploitation  is  wrong.  No  exceptions  in  practice 
destroy  the  validity  of  such  a  proposition.  It  is 
the  prime  conception  which  makes  a  Socialist 
what  he  is.  The  men  who  hold  this  doctrine  fast, 
who  see  it  clearly,  and  who  attempt  to  act  upon  it 
and  to  convert  others  to  it  are  the  true  Socialists. 
They  are  numerous,  and  what  is  more,  they  are 
the  core  of  the  whole  socialist  movement.  It  is 
their  uncompromising  dogma  which  gives  it  its 


246  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

vitality,  for  never  could  so  vast  a  revolution  be 
effected  in  human  habit  as  Socialists  in  general 
pretend  to  effect,  were  there  not  ready  to  act  for 
it  men  possessed  of  a  definite  and  absolute  creed." 
("The  Church  and  Socialism.") 

Now  against  this  sociahst  dogma  the  Catholic 
Church  has  set  her  face  like  a  flint.  She  bans 
and  condemns  it.  She  herself  may  on  occasion 
say  very  strong  things  to  the  capitalist,  as  her 
Divine  Founder  did  before  her.  Early  Fathers, 
the  mediaeval  Doctors,  have,  like  the  Popes  in  all 
ages,  insisted  much  upon  the  duties  and  respon- 
sibilities of  wealth.  But  they  have  never,  even 
amidst  the  utmost  corruptions  of  capitalism, 
denied  the  right  to  own  private  capital.  On  the 
contrary,  they  have  strongly  upheld  and  vindi- 
cated it  as  being  something  inextricably  bound 
up  with  human  welfare,  as  a  condition  of  normal 
civic  freedom. 

Attempts  are  often  made  by  Socialists  to  enlist 
the  Fathers  of  the  Church  in  their  cause.  And 
there  is  no  doubt  that,  taken  out  of  the  context, 
many  passages  from  the  Fathers  of  the  Church, 
notably  from  the  writings  of  St.  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, St.  Cyprian  of  Carthage,  St.  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen,  St.  Basil,  St.  Jerome,  St.  Ambrose,  and 
St.   Chrysostom    smack   of    SociaHsm.     But   let 


SOCIALISM   AND    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     247 

US  make  no  mistake  about  the  point  of  view  from 
which  they  speak.  They  were  not  teachers  of 
economics,  but  of  ethics.  And  for  the  most  part 
they  are  deahng  with  questions  not  of  justice, 
but  of  charity.  Furthermore,  many  of  the  pas- 
sages cited  by  SociaUsts  occur  in  sermons,  and  a 
preacher,  whose  business  it  is  to  create  an  immediate 
impression ;  to  make  his  hsteners  hear,  understand, 
and  feel ;  in  a  word  to  induce  them  to  open  their 
ears,  to  open  their  minds,  and  to  open  their  hearts, 
and  it  may  be,  even  to  open  their  hands  also,  is 
allowed  the  use  of  language  which  in  a  writer 
on  economics  would  be  not  only  out  of  place,  but 
wrong.  Many  of  the  Fathers,  so  triumphantly 
quoted  by  Socialists,  were  the  sons  of  wealthy 
proprietors,  and  were  themselves  owners  of  private 
property  and  capital. 

Later  on  I  will  endeavour  to  exhibit  the  strength 
of  the  Catholic  argument  even  against  those  who 
will  not  admit  the  existence  of  revelation  or 
supernatural  guidance  in  the  Catholic  Church. 
I  will  undertake  to  show  how  strong  is  her  case 
even  from  the  mere  historical  standpoint. 

But  before  doing  so  let  me  set  out,  first  the 
teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  with  regard  to 
property,  and  secondly  the  mischievous  doctrine 
of  economic  Liberalism  upon  the  same  subject  — 


248  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

a  doctrine  against  which  Sociahsm  is  in  great  part 
a  natural  protest  and  reaction. 

According  to  Cathohc  teaching  the  right  to 
own  property  is  a  natural  right.  This  right  is 
prior  to  society,  and  is  based  on  the  will  of  God. 
It  is  the  will  of  God  that  men  should  own  property 
and  even  productive  property.  Private  capital 
is  not  the  result  of  mere  social  convention ;  it  is 
part  of  a  natural  and  divine  plan. 

How  is  this  divine  character  of  the  right  of 
property  established  ?  In  just  the  same  way  as  the 
divine  character  of  civil  authority  is  established. 
That  is  to  say,  we  may  ascertain  God's  will  in 
regard  to  it  by  examining  human  nature  as  it  is 
revealed  to  us  in  history.  Man  has  been  set  upon 
this  earth  in  order  to  develop  his  material,  intel- 
lectual, and  spiritual  capacities.  With  the  duty 
of  developing  them  goes  the  right  of  developing 
them.  Now  the  Catholic  Church  maintains,  and 
has  ever  maintained,  that  the  possession  of  prop- 
erty (including  capital)  is  a  normal  condition  of 
this  development.  Man  not  only  has  a  deep- 
rooted  and  natural  desire  to  own  property,  but, 
as  a  rule,  and  speaking  generally,  if  he  is  to  develop 
according  to  the  designs  of  God,  he  must  own 
property. 

Hence  it  is  the  desire  of  the  Catholic  Church 


SOCIALISM    AND    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     249 

that  as  many  men  as  possible  should  be  pro- 
prietors :  that  they  should  not  only  procure  the 
necessities  of  life  from  day  to  day,  but  also  control 
such  means  of  wealth  as  will  ensure  their  perma- 
nent provision. 

The  justification  for  this  doctrine  has  frequently 
been  set  forth  by  representative  Catholic  writers 
in  all  ages,  and  may  here  be  briefly  recalled. 

Let  us  look  first  at  the  individual.  We  have  in 
a  previous  Conference  seen  that  the  individual  is 
something  more  than  a  cell  in  the  social  organism. 
True,  he  is  a  citizen  with  duties  to  society,  but 
this  does  not  exhaust  his  whole  personality.  He 
does  not  exist  for  the  State :  he  is  not  wholly  and 
in  every  particular  subordinate  to  the  State.  As 
an  individual,  and  as  the  member  of  a  family,  he 
has  rights  and  duties  which  are  independent  of 
and  prior  to  the  State.  He  has  an  immortal 
soul  directly  created  by  God;  he  has  a  direct 
mission  from  God;  and  hence  he  has  certain 
obligations  and  rights  with  which  no  State  may 
interfere. 

Taking  man  as  an  individual,  therefore,  we  find 
that  he  has  certain  needs  and  requirements,  and 
hence  certain  duties.  He  is  bound  to  preserve 
his  life,  for  that  hfe  is  not  his  own ;  it  is  only 
lent  him ;  it  is  God's.     Hence  he  has  the  right  to 


250  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

acquire,  keep,  control,  and  use  whatever  is  necessary 
for  the  maintenance  of  that  hfe. 

This  is  a  primary  right,  before  which  all  other 
rights  must  give  way.  The  Catholic  Church 
teaches  that  a  man  who  is  in  extreme  need  of  the 
means  of  subsistence  may  take,  from  whatever 
source,  what  is  necessary  to  keep  him  from  actual 
starvation.  A  starving  man  who  cannot  other- 
wise obtain  food  may  walk  into  a  baker's  shop  and 
help  himself  to  as  much  bread  as  is  necessary  to 
support  life.  He  may  do  so  openly  or  secretly, 
and  in  neither  case  will  his  action  be  one  of  theft. 
What  is  more,  the  baker  has  no  right  to  prevent 
him,  for  the  starving  man  is  taking  what  he  has 
a  right  to ;  to  prevent  his  action  would  be  an  act 
of  injustice.  It  may  be  illegal,  and  he  would  be 
taken  up  for  doing  so,  but  though  it  might  be  a 
deed  against  law,  it  would  not  be  a  sin  against 
God. 

This  is  the  plain  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church 
enunciated  by  St.  Thomas,  and  found  in  every 
CathoUc  textbook  of  moral  theology.  (II.  11^^, 
I.  66,  a.  7.) 

Man,  then,  has  a  right  to  live.  He  has  a  right 
to  procure  the  necessities  of  life.  He  has  a  right  to 
satisfy  his  absolute  needs. 

Now  man's  needs  recur.     He  eats,  and  after  a 


SOCIALISM   AND   RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     251 

while  hunger  returns.  He  requires  shelter  to-day 
and  will  require  it  to-morrow.  To  meet  a  re- 
curring need  he  must  procure  permanent  resources. 
Nature  puts  sources  of  supply  within  his  reach : 
man  must  take  them  and  control  them.  If  they 
are  not  taken  and  controlled,  they  will  not  supply 
his  permanent  needs.  He  will  not  be  secure,  he 
will  not  be  able  to  meet  recurring  needs,  unless 
he  can  control  the  source  of  his  supplies.  Nature 
bids  him  provide  for  himself  the  means  of  pro- 
duction. 

Moreover,  we  cannot  bid  a  man  limit  his  pos- 
sessions to  what  is  barely  required  for  the  satis- 
faction of  the  ordinary  recurring  needs.  He  is 
subject  to  accidents  and  to  illness :  he  has  to  face 
the  prospect  of  old  age,  and  ought  himself  to  make 
provision  for  it,  and  not  depend  on  a  pension. 
Hence,  if  he  is  to  be  put  beyond  the  reach  of  desti- 
tution, he  must  acquire  more  than  is  necessary  for 
the  satisfaction  of  his  immediate  wants. 

Again,  man,  endowed  as  he  is  with  intellect  and 
free  will,  is  not  a  mere  machine  destined  for  a 
definite  and  limited  measure  of  work  and  incapable 
of  doing  more.  He  has  faculties  which  he  can 
cultivate,  potentialities  which  he  can  develop. 
And  with  this  God-given  power  of  self-develop- 
ment comes  the  right  of  self-development.     Man 


252  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

must  labour  :  but  he  does  not  exist  merely  that  he 
may  labour.  He  is  no  slave  of  his  fellow-men  or  of 
society.  He  has  not  been  sent  into  the  world  merely 
to  contribute  so  many  yards  of  cloth,  or  so  many 
piles  of  bricks,  or  so  many  tons  of  coal,  or  so  many 
yards  of  stone  to  the  world's  wealth.  He  has  the 
right  to  cultivate  his  mind,  to  adorn  his  life  in- 
tellectually, artistically,  and  morally.  But  this 
requires  a  certain  economic  independence.  Here 
again  we  have  the  justification  of  the  ownership 
of  capital. 

Now,  when  we  turn  from  man  as  an  individual 
to  man  as  the  father  of  a  family,  the  justification 
becomes  immeasurably  more  striking. 

Of  the  institution  of  the  family  something  has 
been  said  in  a  previous  Conference.  It  has  been 
shown  that  the  family  is  a  '^ natural"  institution  in 
the  sense  already  explained ;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  from 
God,  and  is  no  institution  invented  by  man.  But 
if  we  accept  the  institution  of  the  family  as  some- 
thing necessary  and  permanent,  we  encounter  spe- 
cial reasons  for  regarding  the  institution  of  private 
capital  as  sharing  in  the  necessity  and  permanence 
of  the  family.  The  point  is  insisted  upon  in  the 
Encyclical  "Rerum  Novarum,"  of  Pope  Leo  XIH. 

"  That  right  of  property,  therefore,  which  has  been 
proved  to  belong  naturally  to  individual  persons 


SOCIALISM   AND   RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     253 

must  likewise  belong  to  a  man  in  his  capacity  of 
head  of  a  family ;  nay,  such  a  person  must  possess 
this  right  so  much  the  more  clearly  in  proportion 
as  his  position  multipHes  his  duties.  For  it  is  a 
most  sacred  law  of  nature  that  a  father  should 
provide  food  and  all  necessaries  for  those  whom 
he  has  begotten;  and,  similarly,  nature  dictates 
that  a  man's  children,  who  carry  on,  so  to  speak, 
and  continue  his  personahty,  should  be  by  him 
provided  with  all  that  is  needful  to  keep  them- 
selves honourably  from  want  and  misery  amid 
the  uncertainties  of  this  mortal  life.  Now  in  no 
other  way  can  a  father  effect  this  except  by  the 
ownership  of  lucrative  property,  which  he  can 
transmit  to  his  children  by  inheritance.  A  family, 
no  less  than  a  State,  is,  as  we  have  said,  a  true 
society,  governed  by  a  power  within  its  sphere, 
that  is  to  say,  by  the  father.  Provided,  therefore, 
the  limits,  which  are  prescribed  by  the  very  pur- 
poses for  which  it  exists,  are  not  transgressed,  the 
family  has  at  least  equal  rights  with  the  State  in 
the  choice  and  pursuit  of  the  things  needful  to  it 
for  its  preservation  and  its  just  liberty." 

But  here  the  Socialist  will   raise  an  objection. 

"All  that  you  have  proved  so  far,"  he  will  say, 
"is,  that  man  has  permanent  wants,  and  that  pro- 
vision must  be  made  for  them.     With  this  I  agree : 


254  SOCIALISM   AND_  CHRISTIANITY 

but  it  is  not  an  argument  against  Socialism.  You 
have  shown  that  there  must  be  capital.  I  admit 
it.  You  have  shown  that  the  sources  of  supply 
must  be  controlled.  I  do  not  doubt  it.  But  you 
have  not  yet  justified  private  capital.  You  have 
not  justified  the  private  capitalist.  My  proposal 
is  not  to  abolish  capital  but  to  transfer  it,  from  the 
individual  and  from  groups  of  individuals,  to  the 
community.  My  desire  is  not  that  the  sources  of 
supply  should  pass  out  of  all  control.  My  desire 
is  that  they  should  be  controlled  by  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people,  in  a  word,  by  the  whole  Com- 
munity." 

"As  for  your  arguments,"  the  Socialist  will  con- 
tinue, 'Hhey  can  be  turned  against  you.  You  say 
that  a  man  has  a  right  to  live,  a  right  to  satisfy  his 
recurring  needs,  a  right  to  develop  his  personality. 
Is  he  able  to  exercise  that  right  in  modern  capital- 
istic society  ?  Can  our  destitute  poor  be  said  to 
live?  Are  there  not  millions  of  men  and  women 
in  America  and  England  who  live  from  hand  to 
mouth,  and  are  not  certain  of  getting  their  next 
meal?  As  for  development  of  personality  and 
cultivation  of  the  mind,  how  many  can  hope  to 
dream  of  it  ?  " 

The  Sociahst  will  say:  ''Look  at  Pittsburg. 
Take  those  living   there  in  Painter's  Row  —  a 


SOCIALISM   AND    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     255 

cluster  of  houses  near  Painter's  Steel  Mill.  "WTiat 
have  you  read  about  them  ?  '  In  one  apartment 
a  man,  his  wife  and  a  baby,  and  two  boarders 
slept  in  one  room,  and  five  boarders  occupied  two 
beds  in  an  adjoining  room.  .  .  .  Not  one  house 
in  the  entire  settlement  had  any  provision  for  sup- 
plying drinking  water  to  its  tenants.  .  .  .  They 
went  to  an  old  pump  in  the  mill  yard,  —  360 
steps  from  the  farthest  apartment,  down  seventy- 
five  stairs.  This  town  pump  was  the  sole  supply 
of  drinking  water  within  reach  of  ninety-one 
households  comprising  568  persons.  .  .  .  An- 
other row  of  one-family  houses  had  a  curious 
wooden  chute  arrangement  on  the  back  porches, 
down  which  waste  water  was  poured  that  ran 
through  open  drains  in  the  rear  yard  to  the  open 
drain  between  this  row  of  houses  and  the  next. 
.  .  .  They  carried  other  things  besides  waste 
water,  —  filth  of  every  description  was  emptied 
down  these  chutes,  for  these  six  families,  and  three 
famihes  below  on  the  first  floor,  had  no  closet  ac- 
commodations and  were  living  like  animals.'  " 

If  no  other  facts  than  these  were  cited,  the 
title  of  the  chapter,  "Low  Wages  and  Standards," 
would  be  more  than  justified  by  the  lowness  of 
the  wages  and  standards  of  Pittsburg,  —  ''the  city 
of  a  thousand  millionnaires."  But  while  the  picture 


256  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

presented  in  Pittsburg  is  extreme,  it  is  by  no  means 
exceptional.  Similar  descriptions,  I  am  told,  might 
be  detailed  of  living  conditions  in  the  slumdoms 
of  New  York,  the  stockyards  district  of  Chicago, 
the  industrial  towns  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the 
coal  fields  of  West  Virginia. 

There  is  a  reflex  of  these  low  standards  of  wages 
and  of  living,  —  a  reflex  on  the  children,  a  fact 
strikingly  illustrated  by  the  situation  in  Chicago. 
Two  years  ago  the  Chicago  Board  of  Education 
investigated  underfeeding  among  Chicago  school 
children.  The  results  of  the  investigation  are 
thus  reported :  — 

''Five  thousand  children  who  attend  the  schools 
of  Chicago  are  habitually  hungry.  .  .  . 

"I  further  report  that  10,000  other  children  in 
the  city  —  while  not  such  extreme  cases  as  the 
aforesaid  —  do  not  have  suflScient  nourishing 
food.  .  .  . 

''There  are  several  thousand  more  children  under 
six  who  are  also  underfed,  and  who  are  too  young 
to  attend  school. 

"The  question  of  food  is  not  the  only  question 
to  be  considered.  Many  children  lack  shoes  and 
clothing.  Many  have  no  beds  to  sleep  in.  They 
cuddle   together  on  hard  floors.     The  majority 


SOCIALISM   AXD   RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     257 

of  the  indigent  children  Hve  in  damp,  unclean,  or 
overcrowded  homes  that  lack  proper  ventilation 
and  sanitation.  Here,  in  the  damp,  ill-smeUing 
basements,  there  is  only  one  thing  regarded  as 
cheaper  than  rent  —  and  that  is  the  life  of  the 
child."     ("  Social  Adjustment,"  p.  74.) 

The  objicient  will  continue,  "No,  the  object  of 
the  socialist  regime  is  to  make  man  and  woman 
secure,  to  let  them  feel  that  they  are  sure  of  food 
and  shelter  next  week,  and  next  year,  and  for  the 
rest  of  their  lives.  Socialism  will  make  it  possible 
for  men  and  women  to  develop  their  personalities, 
to  cultivate  their  minds,  to  expand  their  sym- 
pathies and  interests.  Hence  the  arguments  you 
have  employed  are  arguments  against  Capitalism, 
but  in  favour  of  Socialism." 

To  this  objection  I  reply  as  follows  :  — 

If  it  could  be  proved  that  private  capital  is 
unable  to  supply  the  recurring  needs  of  the  human 
race  and  to  secure  the  other  results  I  have  men- 
tioned, then  clearly  my  arguments  would  not  tell 
in  favour  of  private  capital.  And  if  at  the  same 
time  it  could  be  proved  that  Socialism  is  able  to 
fulfil  its  promises,  then,  I  admit,  my  arguments 
would  tell  in  favour  of  SociaHsm. 

But,  as  I  shall  proceed  to  show,  private  capital 


258  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

is  capable  of  supplying  all  the  needs  of  the  race, 
while  Socialism  is  not.  Hence  the  above  argu- 
ments tell  on  behalf  of  Capitalism  and  against 
Socialism. 

Even  v/ere  Socialism  able  to  perform  what  it 
promises,  the  foregoing  argument  would  be  vaHd, 
—  not  indeed  against  Sociahsm,  but  against 
propositions  frequently  laid  down  by  Sociahsts. 

Do  not  Socialists  often  declare  that  private 
capital  is  an  essentially  unjust  thing?  Now  it 
must  be  remembered  that  a  socialist  regime  has 
never  yet  been  established.  The  world  has  had 
to  get  on  all  these  thousands  of  years  without 
Sociahsm,  and  meanwhile  communities  have  had 
to  live.  Now  the  foregoing  arguments  have 
proved  that  some  control  of  capital  is  necessary. 
Hence  in  the  absence  of  public  control  it  was 
absolutely  necessary  to  have  private  control.  But 
a  necessity  justifies  itself :  hence  private  Capital- 
ism is  vindicated  from  the  charge  of  injustice. 

''But  at  any  rate,"  says  the  SociaHst,  ''Capital- 
ism has  broken  down  now,  and  Sociahsm  is  the 
only  system  which  can  do  the  work  that  Capitahsm 
can  no  longer  do." 

I  answer  that  Capitalism  has  not  broken  down. 
I  admit  —  with  Leo  XIII  —  that  modern  Capi- 
talism is  bristling  with  abuses.    It  has  got  out  of 


SOCIALISM   AND    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     259 

hand.  It  requires  drastic  treatment.  But  Capital- 
ism as  a  system  does  not  stand  condemned.  Its 
abuses  may  be  cured,  as  I  shall  indicate  in  my 
final  Conference.  Hence  Capitalism  is  justified 
by  the  arguments  which  I  have  employed. 

But  what  of  SociaUsm  ?  Could  Sociahsm  do  the 
work  for  which  CapitaHsm  is  declared  to  be  incom- 
petent and  unequal?  It  could  not.  To  prove 
this  I  will  pass  to  another  series  of  arguments 
which  you  may  discover  in  the  Encyclical  "  Rerum 
No  varum  "  of  Leo  XIII,  and  which  may  be  traced 
back  through  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  to  Aristotle. 

This  line  of  argument  is  based,  as  Pere  Antoine 
points  out,  upon  a  very  keen  social  psychology. 
It  asserts  that  the  private  ownership  of  capital 
is  required  for  the  maintenance  of  social  order, 
the  securing  of  peace,  and  the  progress  of  civili- 
zation. It  appeals  to  certain  primary  facts  about 
human  nature  which  the  Socialist  too  often  over- 
looks.    Let  us  consider  one  or  two  of  these  facts. 

In  the  first  place,  we  notice  that  men  are  more 
careful  about  their  own  property  than  they  are 
about  the  property  of  others.  A  friend  lately 
married  writes  to  me,  saying,  that  "wedded  life 
makes  one  more  careful  of  all  goods  and  chattels 
than  ever  I  thought  could  be  possible."  This  ad- 
mission may  sound  strange,  but  it  is  true  and  must 


260  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

be  recognized.  Could  we  transform  the  characters 
of  men,  a  socialist  regime  would  have  something  to 
be  said  in  its  favour.  But  Socialists  seem  to  as- 
sume the  improvement  of  character  under  their 
system  without  indicating  any  features  of  that 
system  which  are  likely  to  produce  it.  Taking 
men  as  they  are,  we  discover  that  they  usually 
require  the  stimulus  of  private  ownership  before 
they  will  put  forth  their  best  work.  PubHc  ad- 
ministration is  apt  to  be  marked  by  wastefulness ; 
municipal  wastefulness  has  almost  passed  into  a 
proverb.  Give  a  man  a  share  in  a  business,  or  in 
a  piece  of  land  and  he  will  set  all  his  wits  to  work 
discovering  methods  of  economy  of  improve- 
ment, and  of  labour-saving  devices,  and  so  forth. 
Business  firms  everywhere  recognize  this.  As  a 
public  official  in  a  similar  position  he  would  not 
have  the  same  spur  to  enterprise. 

Now  it  is  clear  that  disaster  is  in  store  for  that 
society  of  which  the  members  cease  to  exert  them- 
selves to  the  utmost  in  the  development  of  their 
country's  resources.  I  need  not  elaborate  this 
point.  Nations  are  no  longer  self-contained  and 
self-sufficient.  The  markets  of  the  world  are  con- 
fluent, and  the  life  of  a  nation  depends  on  its 
being  able  to  maintain  a  very  high  level  of  in- 
dustry, enterprise,  and  resourcefulness.     Never  be- 


SOCIALIS^I   AND   RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     261 

fore  was  the  stimulus  of  private  capital  so  neces- 
sary for  national  prosperity  and  security. 

Again,  the  stimulus  of  private  capital  is  re- 
quired for  another  social  reason.  Not  only  is  it 
necessary  as  a  direct  condition  of  adequate  pro- 
duction, but  it  is  necessary  on  account  of  its  re- 
action on  character.  The  welfare  of  society  rests 
not  only  upon  economic  considerations,  but  upon 
character.  The  object  of  civil  society  is  not 
only  to  produce  wealth,  but  to  develop  character. 
That  the  citizen  should  be  industrious,  sober, 
manly,  diligent,  is  to  the  advantage  not  only  of  the 
citizen  himself  but  of  the  society  in  which  he  lives. 
These  quahties  not  only  help  to  produce  wealth, 
but  they  are  wealth :  they  are  among  a  nation's 
most  valuable  assets. 

Now  these  quahties  are  best  sustained  by  a  wide 
distribution  of  private  capital.  I  do  not  say  that 
they  flourish  particularly  well  under  the  present 
capitalistic  regime.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  at 
present  stunted  and  crippled.  But  the  reason 
of  this  is  that  the  present  capitalist  regime  is,  as 
Pope  Leo  XIII  has  told  us,  in  an  abnormal  and 
diseased  condition.  It  is  reeking  with  abuses. 
But  the  abuses  are  not  inseparable  from  Capital- 
ism itself.  They  are  the  growth,  like  weeds,  of 
neglect,  and  have  arisen  from  a  betrayal  of  Cliris- 


262  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

tian  principles.  They  can  be  cured  by  a  return 
to  Christian  principles.  They  cannot  be  cured 
by  Socialism. 

They  can  be  cured  by  a  return  to  Catholic  prin- 
ciples, because  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  rights 
of  property  is  also  a  doctrine  of  the  limitations 
and  due  use  of  property.  Impress  these  principles 
upon  society  by  means  of  legislation,  private 
effort,  and  the  influence  of  religion,  and  you  will 
have  a  regime  of  property  which  will  be  free  from 
current  abuses,  and  will  promote  the  good  qualities 
which  I  have  mentioned.  Such  a  regime  would 
heighten  the  sense  of  responsibility,  and  would  lead 
men  to  pull  themselves  together,  and  to  put  forth 
their  best  work.  Lay  more  stress  on  the  family 
and  the  household,  and  on  family  capital,  and  you 
supply  strong  motives  for  persistent  devoted  effort. 

Such  results  cannot  be  secured  by  Socialism. 
At  first  sight,  indeed.  Socialism  would  seem  to 
make  for  a  higher  altruism.  It  is  urged  that  just 
as  society  is  a  greater  thing  than  the  family,  so 
it  is  more  likely  to  call  forth  nobler  and  more  un- 
selfish effort.  Socialists  sometimes  protest  against 
the  selfishness  of  family  feeling,  and  claim  that 
Socialism  will  widen  men's  horizon,  and  substitute 
unselfish  work  for  society,  in  place  of  selfish  com- 
petition on  behalf  of  one's  own  family. 


SOCIALISM   AND   RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     263 

Does  not  such  a  claim  show  a  strange  ignorance 
of  human  nature  ?  Man's  powers  are  Umited.  In 
all  cases  he  has  to  proceed  from  the  less  to  the 
greater.  He  has  to  proceed  from  what  is  near  and 
known  to  what  is  remote  and  unknown.  He  has 
to  proceed  from  the  particular  to  the  universal. 
Citizenship  is  not  a  lesson  that  is  easily  learned. 
It  must  first  be  practised  on  a  small  scale  in  the 
family.  A  man  must,  as  a  rule,  learn  to  administer 
his  own  private  property  before  he  can  be  trusted 
to  administer  pubhc  property.  He  must  learn 
the  lessons  of  honesty,  industry,  temperance,  pru- 
dence, unselfishness,  and  these  lessons  are  best 
learned  in  the  administration  of  private  capital. 
The  Socialist  may  call  this  statement  a  paradox, 
but  I  believe  it  to  be  true.  History  points  to  it. 
Where  do  we  find  the  trustworthy  public  men,  the 
incorruptible,  prudent,  conscientious  administra- 
tors, the  painstaking  legislators,  the  good  citizens  ? 
We  find  them  among  those  who  have  been  trained 
in  the  administration  of  honestly  acquired  private 
capital,  in  the  ordering  of  the  family  homestead. 
I  do  not  refer  to  a  class  of  men  who  to-day  are 
piling  up  rapid  fortunes  by  questionable  means: 
for  they  violate  Christian  principles  both  in  the 
acquisition  and  in  the  use  of  their  wealth.  They 
are  "grafters."     I  refer  to  those  who  in  the  Chris- 


264  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

tian  spirit  regard  themselves  as  merely  stewards  of 
their  possessions,  and  who  in  the  administration 
of  that  wealth  learn  the  lesson  of  social  altruism. 

Not  so  long  ago  I  sent  an  urchin,  who  had  passed 
through  his  parochial  school,  into  the  service  of  an 
English  shipping  merchant.  He  started  as  an 
errand  boy.  His  Presbyterian  employer  called 
him  into  his  office  and  asked  him  if  I  had  given 
him  any  advice  or  directions  to  secure  his  climb- 
ing up  in  the  business. 

The  boy  answered  that  I  had  given  "sl  whole 
lot"  of  advice,  and  that  I  had  ended  it  by  saying 
that  he  would  find  most  of  what  I  had  said  written 
up  in  tabloid  form  on  the  office  door:  ''Push," 
which,  when  expanded,  spelt  out:  be  ''Punctual, 
Upright,  Sober,  and  Honest."  The  merchant  was 
satisfied,  and  told  the  lad  that  if  only  he  would 
put  that  advice  into  practice,  he  might  most  likely 
one  day  become  a  partner  in  that  business.  The 
boy  is  learning  to  become  a  steward  of  property. 

Socialism  would,  I  fear,  be  likely  to  breed  a  race 
of  extravagant  administrators.  If  no  individuals 
owned  capital,  there  would  be  no  check  on  reckless 
spending.  The  salaried  citizen  would  clamour 
for  a  higher  salary  without  stopping  to  think 
whether  the  nation  could  afford  to  give  it  to  him ; 
he  might  help  himself ;  he  might  help  his  friends ; 


SOCIALISM   AND   RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     265 

he  might  create  jobs  for  adventurers.  He  might 
abuse  his  position  of  trust  and  live  on  "  graft." 

And  this  leads  me  to  another  consideration. 

It  is  a  crime  against  society  to  weaken  social 
stabiUty.  Our  efforts  must  be  to  secure  solidarit}^, 
to  effect  a  unity  of  interest  among  the  different 
classes  of  society,  to  weld  all  men  together  into  a 
healthy  and  compact  organism.  We  must  not 
allow  ourselves  to  be  exposed  to  the  danger  of 
revolutions,  as  though  we  were  a  South  American 
Republic. 

Now  social  stability  is  undoubtedly  fostered 
by  the  multiplication  of  capitalists  in  the  country. 
The  Sociahst  may  object  that  the  present  capital- 
istic regime  is  unstable,  and  that  we  are  in  danger 
of  revolutions.  I  admit  it.  But  the  reason  is 
not  because  capitaUsts  exist.  The  reason  is  be- 
cause there  are  not  enough  capitalists.  Capital 
is  not  sufficiently  distributed.  If  we  want  to 
make  society  stable,  we  must  give  as  many  men  as 
possible  a  stake  in  the  country.  The  man  who 
owns  a  home  is  not  so  likely  to  be  a  revolutionary 
as  the  lodger.  The  man  who  possesses  a  farm  or 
a  share  in  the  industrial  concern  for  which  he 
works,  is  not  so  likely  to  welcome  violent  upheavals 
as  the  shifting  wage-earner.  The  reason  of  this 
increased   stabihty  which  follows  the  wide  dis- 


266  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

tribution  of  capital  is  no  mere  selfish  one.  Man 
does  not  strive  for  peace  and  counteract  revolu- 
tion merely  because  revolution  might  threaten  his 
own  property.  But  that  property  is  the  hnk  which 
binds  him  to  the  nation.  It  brings  his  citizenship 
to  a  focus  and  gives  it  tangible  shape.  National 
peace  and  stability  rest  upon  local  peace  and  sta- 
bility. The  strength  and  virtue  of  society  wells 
up  like  the  sap  in  springtime  from  the  land.  At- 
tach men  to  the  land,  give  them  a  share  in  it,  let 
them  control  it  individually  (either  directly  as 
small  landowners  or  indirectly  as  shareholders  in 
industrial  concerns)  and  you  give  them  character 
and  stabihty.  The  weakness  and  peril  of  modern 
European  nations  lie  not  only  in  the  ''Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World,"  but  in  the  growing  host 
of  shifting  proletarians.  When  Romans  owned 
their  farms  Rome  was  strong.  When  they  de- 
pended on  public  bread  the  nation  was  ripe  for 
destruction. 

How  are  we  to  account  for  the  rush  of  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  to  Canada  and  to  the  United 
States  ?  In  some  districts  you  find  a  community 
made  up  of  thirty-three  nationalities  and  more. 
For  the  most  part,  among  themselves,  they  talk, 
for  a  generation  or  two,  the  language  of  the  land 
whence    they    came,    they   retain    their    ancient 


SOCIALISM  AND   RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     267 

customs,  have  their  own  clubs,  and  guilds,  and 
in  some  instances  publish  their  own  daily  paper. 
Yet  all  these  naturally  conflicting  elements  become 
welded  into  one  nationality,  they  become  law- 
abiding  American  citizens,  and  rally  to  the  star 
spangled  banner  with  a  readiness  and  loyalty 
beyond  all  praise.  If  you  want  the  all-explana- 
tory reason  of  this  admirable  cathoUcity  of  spirit, 
I  need  only  remind  you  of  the  earth-pervading 
instinct  in  man  for  private  and  productive  owner- 
ship. Just  as  the  peasant  in  Ireland  and  the 
crofter  in  Scotland  want  to  own  their  own  bit  of 
land,  so  all  these  immigrants,  or  whatever  other 
name  you  may  call  them,  swarm  to  the  North 
American  continent  because  they  see  the  oppor- 
tunity of  becoming  proprietors,  capitahsts. 

In  most  of  the  Provinces  of  Canada,  and  of  the 
States  of  America,  people  want  to  own  their  homes, 
or  their  homesteads,  or  their  farms.  They  want 
to  make  their  own  businesses,  and  to  become  pri- 
vate owners  of  capital. 

The  same  ambition  is  to  be  found  among  the 
aboriginal  Indians.  Every  member  of  an  Indian 
tribe  is  the  owner  of  private  property.  As  soon 
as  the  "papoose"  appears,  to  it  is  given  a  horse, 
or  a  cow,  or  a  sewing  machine,  or  a  dog,  or  a  gun, 
or  what  not,  so  that  by  the  time  the  young  brave 


268  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

has  attained  manhood,  he  may  find  himself  the 
owner  of  considerable  property,  all  of  which,  in 
days  gone  by,  would  have  been  destroyed  at 
his  death.  In  a  reservation  in  Montana  every 
member  of  the  Blackfeet  was  assigned  by  the 
government  320  acres  of  land.  On  the  day  on 
which  the  allotting  agent  arrived  at  the  reser- 
vation a  child  was  born.  Needless  to  say,  to 
that  infant  was  given,  no  less  than  to  the  Chief, 
its  own  320  acres. 

I  submit  that  grave  objections  may  be  brought 
against  Socialism  on  the  score  that  it  would  lead  to 
evictions  innumerable,  that  it  would  prejudice  the 
healthy  development  of  character,  and  threaten 
social  stability.  There  are  other  serious  economic 
difficulties  against  it,  such  as  the  enormous  expense 
of  public  administration  which  it  would  entail,  but 
these  difficulties  have  frequently  been  set  forth 
in  books  dealing  with  Socialism,  and  I  need  not 
consider  them  here. 

I  am  concerned  rather  with  specifically  religious 
and  moral  objections  to  Socialism;  and  these  I 
must  develop  further  in  the  next  Conference. 

Among  the  many  questions  that  have  been  sent 
me  during  the  past  month  by  Socialists,  the  follow- 
ing difficulties,  as  not  unworthy  of  attention,  I 
now  propose  to  deal  with  briefly :  — 


SOCIALISM   AND    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     269 

(1)  ''  Has  a  capitalist,  or  employer  of  labour,  any 
claim  in  justice  upon  that  surplus  value  remain- 
ing after  working  expenses  of  a  business  are  paid, 
and  the  workmen's  wages  are  paid  and  the  employer 
himself  is  reasonably  paid  ?  Besides,  is  it  not 
true  that  labour  is  the  only  source  of  value  ?  "  To 
the  first  part  of  this  question  I  offer  the  following 
solution :  In  strict  justice  the  surplus  value  re- 
ferred to  belongs  to  the  employer,  or  capitalist, 
in  the  case ;  and  it  is  for  him  to  determine  to 
what  purpose  to  put  it.  Of  course  I  presume 
that  labour  in  the  case  referred  to  receives  a  liv- 
ing and  not  a  sweated  wage.  The  first  duty  of 
capital  is  to  pay  a  decent  remuneration  for  work 
done. 

In  spite  of  legislation  against  the  sweater  I 
am  told  that  in  the  United  States  to-day  ''con- 
siderably more  than  two-thirds  of  the  girls  and 
women  who  work  for  a  living  in  stores  and  factories 
are  paid  less  than  a  living  wage."  "In  Massa- 
chusetts 65  per  cent  of  the  candy  workers,  40  per 
cent  of  the  laundry  workers,  40  per  cent  of  cotton 
workers,  get  less  than  six  dollars  a  week."  With 
revelations  such  as  these  before  us,  there  can  be  no 
question  as  to  where  surplus  values  ought  to  find 
their  way.  But  given  a  living  wage,  then  the 
residual  portion  of  surplus  value  referred  to  in  the 


270  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

objection  may  in  strict  justice  be  spent  upon  pro- 
ductive works,  improved  machinery,  enlarged 
premises, —  all  of  which  indirectly  benefit  labour  as 
well  as  capital.  What  might  be  best  to  do  with 
this  residual  surplus  value  would  be  to  create  co- 
operative work,  or  better  still,  profit-sharing  ven- 
tures, and  best  of  all,  copartnerships.  Speaking 
on  this  subject  as  a  set-off  against  the  tactics  of 
Socialists,  a  modem  writer  well  says  that:  — 

''We  cannot  pronounce  that  copartnership  of 
itself,  unaccompanied  by  some  change  of  spirit 
on  the  part  of  rich  people,  would  finally  allay  dis- 
content. But,  what  is  immeasurably  important, 
it  would  start  the  reconstitution  of  society  on 
lines  that  are  sound,  businesslike,  evolutionary, 
instead  of  revolutionary,"  and  found  to  be  in  oper- 
ation in  some  American  firms  of  standing.  Who 
would  not  prefer  it  to  the  absorption  of  wealth  by 
the  State  and  the  State  officials  ?  Who  would  not 
prefer  it  to  the  recurrence  of  devastating  strikes  ? 

"Where  a  workingman  draws  a  share  in  the 
profits  of  industry,  he  knows  that  this  share  at 
least  is  not  going  to  buy  some  rich  man  a  new  car. 
When  times  are  good,  he  has  tangible  cause  for 
rejoicing.  When  times  are  bad,  he  does  not  suffer 
alone.  He  has  perpetually  a  strong  interest  against 
any  event  which  injures  the  prosperity  of  his  trade. 


SOCIALISM   AND    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     271 

And,  in  his  most  rapacious  mood,  the  method 
he  must  choose  for  increasing  his  share  of  good 
things  cannot  be  a  method  that  would  involve 
his  own  property  in  ruin." 

There  are  difficulties  in  the  path,  and  it  does  not 
lead  straight  to  a  heaven  upon  earth.  Like  any 
other  institution  of  society,  it  is  unworkable  with- 
out good-will.  Like  any  other  system,  its  success 
would  depend  on  character. 

"But  we  can  claim  that  it  offers  to  labour  a 
stake  in  the  country,  a  stake  in  organized  society, 
and  the  least  dangerous  line  along  which  to  advance 
such  further  demands  as  labour  may  feel  con- 
strained to  make." 

As  to  the  second  part  of  the  objection,  namely, 
that  to  labour  alone  belongs  the  profits  of  a  busi- 
ness. My  only  answer  to  this  objection  is,  that 
on  the  face  of  it,  it  is  as  monstrous  as  it  is  absurd. 
Take  a  gramophone,  a  song,  a  novel,  or  any  other 
commodity;  their  exchange  values  depend  not  only 
upon  what  mental  and  manual  labor  have  been  ex- 
pended upon  the  article  in  question,  but  upon  de- 
mand and  supply,  upon  utility  to  the  buyer,  upon 
the  rarity  of  the  article,  and  upon  its  quality. 
A  gramophone's  value  depends  upon  records, 
upon  the  make,  upon  the  demand,  upon  the 
supply,  upon  the  utility  to  the  purchaser  —  and 


272  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

also  upon  the  cost  to  the  maker  and  the  wages 
paid  to  the  mechanic  who  turned  it  out. 

(2)  "Why  should  artists  and  poets,  scientists 
and  philosophers,  be  better  paid  for  their  work 
than  blacksmiths,  bricklayers,  ploughmen,  and 
carpenters  ?  The  former  need  no  better  food  than 
the  latter,  and  they  are  less  necessary  to  the  com- 
munity.    All  should  be  paid  alike." 

This  difficulty  savours  of  a  Fabian,  who  speaks 
of  the  artistic  classes  generally  as  "the  high- 
priests  of  the  modern  Moloch."  The  artist,  it 
is  true,  is  not  needed  as  much  as  the  carpenter 
for  the  material  well-being  of  the  community. 
For  the  support  of  physical  life  the  baker  is  more 
necessary  than  the  painter.  But  there  are  other 
view-points  besides  those  of  the  mere  materialist. 
A  skilled  labourer  who  is  making  a  frame  for  a  por- 
trait is  not,  I  take  it,  troubled  with  the  artistic 
temperament  of  the  painter  who  fills  in  the  canvas. 
Usually  a  joiner's  work  does  not  interfere  with  his 
sleep,  health,  and  appetite.  He  is,  as  a  rule,  if 
not  in  rude  health,  at  least  normal.  The  artist 
certainly  is  not ;  he  has  to  pay  heavily  for  his 
genius.  I  myself  have  seen  artists  who,  while 
engaged  upon  the  canvas,  have  had  more  than 
once  to  leave  their  work,  sick  under  the  nervous 
strain  caused   by  the  artistic  temperament.     It 


SOCIALISM   AND    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     273 

is  all  very  well  to  proclaim  with  the  Fabian  Shaw 
that  an  artist  should  be  paid  and  fed  no  better 
than  a  ploughman,  but  the  result  of  such  treat- 
ment would  be  that  you  would  have  to  get  on 
with  no  better  painters  than  signpost  artists. 
Fine  temperaments,  as  I  once  heard  the  late  Laure- 
ate, Lord  Tennyson,  say,  require  fine  things  and  fine 
treatment.  Under  a  socialist  regime  there  would 
be  no  room  for  the  artist,  his  occupation  would  be 
gone.  In  a  socialist  atmosphere  he  could  not  live. 
He  would  fret  to  death  like  a  swan  in  a  duck  pond. 

(3)  "Why  should  not  the  State  be  the  sole  pro- 
prietor of  all  the  instruments  of  the  production 
and  the  distribution  of  a  country's  wealth  ?  Why 
should  we  not  have  State  ownership,  say,  of  all 
Railways,  etc.,  as  well  as  of  all  our  Mails  ?  If  the 
Post-office  is  so  successful,  why  should  not  other 
industries  be  equally  so  under  State  ownership  ?  " 

This  difficulty  is  a  very  plausible  one;  but  it 
is  without  legs  on  which  to  travel.  Before  citing 
the  Post-office  as  their  example,  Socialists  must 
prove,  what  they  cannot,  that  to  the  Post-office 
is  due  the  production  of  all  the  mails  that  are  con- 
veyed by  that  service.  This  they  cannot  do. 
Further,  they  must  prove  that  the  Post-office  dis- 
tributes the  mail,  which  it  certainly  does  not. 
It  contracts  with  Railway  and  Steamship  Com- 


274  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

panies  to  carry  what  it  has  not  produced  and  what 
it  cannot  distribute.  As  for  State-owned  railways, 
they  compare  very.unfavourably  with  those  owned 
by  private  companies.  In  Switzerland  and  Italy, 
in  Australia  and  New  Zealand,  not  to  lengthen 
the  list,  have  not  Railway  Systems  owned  and  op- 
erated by  the  government  been  financial  failures  ? 
They  know  nothing  of  the  success  of  the  Railway 
ventures  in  the  United  States.  If  Socialists  urge 
that  the  State  Railways  of  Germany,  at  any 
rate,  are  worked  at  a  profit,  I  will  remind  them  that 
they  charge  an  average  freight  rate  about  double 
that  of  the  United  States.  We  are  assured  that 
if  the  Railways  in  the  States  were  government 
property,  worked  on  German  lines,  they  would 
cost  the  country  four  million  dollars  a  day  more 
than  they  do  at  present.  Finally,  observe  this, 
that  the  State-owned  iron  road,  known  as  the 
Western  Railway  of  France,  has  the  reputation  of 
being  the  worst  managed  in  Europe.  "  Last  year 
its  loss  was  over  thirteen  millions  of  dollars."  If 
we  are  to  have  good  service,  cheap  rates,  and  high 
wages,  we  must  also  have  competition,  the  outcome 
not  of  State  but  of  private  ownership. 

(4)  Another  Socialist  writes  to  ask  me  if  there  is 
any  solution  to  the  following  difficulty.  He  tells 
me  that  this  is  a  question  proposed  by  the  Hon. 


SOCIALISM   AND    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     275 

Charles  Russell,  and  is  unanswerable.  The  question 
is  this :  "  If  it  be  lawful  for  the  State  to  tax  prop- 
erty at  all,  why  is  it  not  lawful  for  the  State  to  take 
that  property  altogether  ?  Practically  it  takes  the 
lives  of  its  soldier-citizens  by  sending  them  to  the 
field  of  battle.  If  their  lives  may  be  taken,  surely 
their  property  may  be  socialized."  Before  answer- 
ing this  difficulty  I  beg  to  state  that  I  was  present 
when  Mr.  Russell  made  the  speech  from  which 
this  question  has  been  borrowed.  In  that  speech 
Mr.  Russell  declared  more  than  once  that  he  was 
no  Socialist.  It  is  a  libel  upon  him  to  say  that 
he  has  identified  himself  with  socialist  doctrine. 
The  questions  which  in  that  speech  he  proposed 
were  uttered  with  the  intention  of  eliciting  the 
opinions  of  others  rather  than  of  expressing  his 
own.  Mr.  Russell  is  too  well  acquainted  with  the 
Christian  idea  of  the  State  and  of  its  functions 
ever  to  have  put  forth  as  his  own  the  sentiment  ex- 
pressed in  the  objection  with  which  I  now  propose 
to  deal. 

The  State,  let  it  be  remembered,  is  an  institu- 
tion set  up  by  man  not  to  appropriate  but  to 
protect  him  and  his  property,  not  therefore  to  ab- 
sorb but  to  assist  him  by  giving  him  the  oppor- 
tunity of  doing  what  he  ought  to  do,  but  what  he 
cannot  do  without  the  protection  and  assistance 


276  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

of  the  State.  It  is  the  function  of  the  State  to 
look  to  the  well-being  of  all  its  citizens,  to  prevent 
the  clash  of  individual  interests,  and  to  provide 
as  far  as  may  be  for  the  temporal  welfare  of  the 
community  as  a  whole.  Clearly  this  cannot  be 
done  without  legitimate  taxation  of  property. 
Not  even  the  State  can  carry  on  its  various  works 
without  wage-paying,  etc.  How,  let  me  ask,  is 
the  State  to  be  financed  except  by  a  well-ordered 
system  of  taxation?  What  become  of  the  high- 
ways, of  the  police  and  magistracy,  of  the  Navy 
and  Army,  if  the  treasury  is  depleted  ?  Cut  off 
the  supplies  coming  from  taxation  and  you  para- 
lyze the  action  of  the  State.  We  tax  property  to 
protect  and  assist  it,  not  to  appropriate  and  as- 
similate it.  If  we  send  our  armies  into  battle, 
it  is  not  that  they  may  be  shot  down,  but  that  they 
may  defend  our  homes  and  our  property,  and  pro- 
tect our  country  from  becoming  the  spoil  of  our 
enemies.  The  analogy  drawn  between  the  army 
and  the  socialization  of  private  property  will  not 
work. 

Let  me  close  this  series  of  difficulties  by  an 
extract  from  Pope  Leo's  Encyclical  on  the  Con- 
dition of  the  Working  Classes.  He  writes  that  : 
''The  foremost  duty  of  the  Rulers  of  the  State 
should  be  to  make  sure  that  the  laws  and  institu- 


SOCIALIS]M   AXD    RIGHTS   OF   OWNERSHIP     277 

tions,  the  general  character  and  administration 
of  the  Commonwealth,  shall  be  such  as  of  them- 
selves to  realize  pubhc  well-being  and  private 
prosperity.  This  is  the  proper  scope  of  wise 
statesmanship  and  the  work  of  the  heads  of  the 
State." 

May  these  wise  words  of  the  sovereign  Pontiff 
sink  into  our  hearts  and  draw  forth  from  them  the 
spirit  of  Christian  citizenship  which  recognizes  the 
duties  no  less  than  the  rights  of  private  ownership. 


VIII 

SOCIALISM  AND  THE  DUTIES  OF 
OWNERSHIP 

On  my  arrival  in  the  United  States,  the  very- 
first  number  of  the  International  Socialist  Review 
which  came  my  way  was  decked  out  in  a  brill- 
iantly coloured  cover-design  which  I  will  attempt 
to  describe.  The  picture  was  cleverly  drawn  and 
was  intended  to  symbolize  as  well  as  to  synopsize 
the  teaching  of  Socialism. 

Imagine,  then,  a  pyramidal  structure,  supported 
on  the  shoulders  of  men,  women,  and  children, 
who,  bowed  and  groaning  under  the  weight  crush- 
ing out  their  lives,  are  attempting  feebly  to  cry 
out :  ''We  work  for  all ; "  "We  feed  all." 

On  the  first  stage  above  the  base  of  this  pyramid 
thus  supported  by  the  proletariat  is  depicted  a 
scene  in  which  capitalists  and  other  employers 
of  labour  are  having  a  good  time,  —  feasting,  ca- 
rousing, and  loitering  in  luxury  and  idleness.  The 
motto  emblazoned  across  this  mise  en  scene  is 
significant :  ''We  eat  for  you." 

278 


SOCIALISM   AND   DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP      279 

On  the  stage  immediately  above  this  we  are 
shown  naval  and  military  forces  clad  in  the  garb  of 
battle,  standing  behind  their  guns  and  awaiting 
the  order  to  fire  upon  any  section  of  the  com- 
munity which  should  dare  to  revolt  against  the 
tyranny  of  capital.  The  motto  inscribed  across 
this  picture  is  :  "We  shoot  at  you."  On  the  next 
platform  above  this  tragic  scene  there  stand  out 
priests,  and  an  altar  with  book  and  candles  and 
censer,  all  of  which  is  to  be  interpreted  by  the  text 
written  across  the  floor:  "We  fool  you."  Next 
to  this  comes  the  top  stage,  on  which  we  recognize 
kaisers  and  kings,  with  other  potentates,  who 
owe  their  position  to  such  servile  creatures 
as  the  capitalist  and  the  priest  of  the  Cathohc 
Church.  On  the  apex  of  this  wicked  pyramidal 
frontispiece  stands  the  money-bag,  "the  God  and 
Ruler  of  all." 

We  all  know  that  there  is  nothing  so  telling 
in  a  picture  gallery  as  the  canvas  with  a  story. 
To  it  more  particularly  the  wage-earner  is  drawn. 
The  editors  of  the  /.  S.  R.,  then,  have  made  use 
of  this  time-famed  method  of  teaching  in  order 
to  convey  their  own  diabolical  doctrines  of  class 
hatred  to  the  breadwinner,  who  is  told  that  prop- 
erty is  robbery,  and  that  he,  with  his  fellows,  is 
being  exploited,  crushed,  and  ground  to  the  dust, 


280  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

not  only  by  capitalists,  but  even  still  more  by 
the  Church,  whose  proud  boast  it  is  that  it  is  the 
direct  and  immediate  pillar  support  of  law,  order, 
and  authority  in  the  State. 

Capitalist  exploitation,  we  are  assured  by 
Victor  Berger,  is  better  than  Roman  Cathohc 
exploitation.  Whsit  blocks  the  way  of  SociaUsm 
is  Catholicism. 

When  lecturing  in  the  Eldorado  district,  I 
visited  a  prison,  where  I  came  across  an  Enghsh 
Socialist  serving  his  time  for  having  ''pinched" 
nuggets.  He  had  been  suspected,  so,  impressions 
having  been  first  of  all  taken,  a  certain  number 
of  nuggets  were  hidden  away  in  the  claim  where  he 
was  mining  as  a  wage-worker. 

The  missing  gold  treasures  were  discovered  in 
his  mouth  and  on  his  person.  He  was  forced  to 
disgorge  them  and  to  pay  the  penalty  of  two  years 
in  the  penitentiary.  He  had  socialist  doctrine 
and  training  to  thank  for  being  in  jail.  He  pro- 
tested that  he  had  only  taken  his  own,  and  less 
than  his  share.  In  fact,  he  had  reclaimed  what 
had  been  stolen  from  him  and  his  by  that  robber 
class  called  private  property  owners. 

The  Mounted  PoUce  had  done  the  prisoner  a  good 
service,  for  when  I  saw  him  the  second  time,  he 
asked  me  to  write  home  to  Whitechapel  and  tell 


SOCIALISM   AND    DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     281 

his  w^fe  that  he  had  ''quit  the  comi-ade  gang,"  and 
he  added:  "You  will  be  sure,  Father,  to  tell 
them  at  home  that  I  have  no  more  use  in  fu- 
ture for  Socialists  nor  for  rattlesnakes.  A\Tien 
I  come  out,"  he  continued,  "there's  not  a  bulldog 
but  I'll  look  in  the  eye.  I'll  have  a  shack  of  my 
own,  and  I'll  work  for  my  own,  and  when  I  am  laid 
in  the  ground  I'll  have  a  grave  of  my  own.  It's 
property  as  makes  the  man,  and  no  two  ways 
about  it." 

We  have  seen  in  the  previous  Conference  that 
man  as  an  individual  and  as  the  father  of  a  family 
has  a  right  to  make  provision  for  his  permanent 
needs,  and  that  the  normal  and  natural  way  of 
doing  so  is  by  acquiring  possession  of  some  part 
of  those  sources  of  supply  with  which  nature  has 
so  wonderfully  and  plentifully  provided  the  hu- 
man race.  This  method  of  providing  for  human 
wants  has  been  a  method  actually  practised  among 
all  peoples,  and  in  all  ages.  On  the  great  Western 
continent  in  this  New  World  this  scheme  of  things 
still  obtains. 

But  now  comes  the  Socialist  who  advocates 
what  he  considers  to  be  a  more  effective  method, 
namely,  the  transfer  of  all  the  means  of  production 
to  the  community,  to  be  administered  by  the  civil 
authority. 


282  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

We  have  already  seen  in  our  second  Conference 
that  the  State  is  a  natural  institution  with  certain 
well-defined  rights  and  duties  which  are  restricted 
by  prior  claims  and  duties  of  the  individual  and  the 
family.  Hence  we  may  say  at  once  that  Social- 
ism is  not  a  natural  or  normal  solution.  It  goes 
counter  to  the  purpose  for  which  the  State  was 
instituted  through  man  by  God.  Under  Sociahsm 
State  action  becomes  a  substitute  for  individual 
action,  rather  than  supplementary  to  it.  The 
individual,  as  has  already  been  shown,  becomes 
swallowed  up  in  the  State.  This  is  an  inversion 
of  the  natural  order. 

Hence  the  presumption  is  in  favour  of  private 
capitalism,  which  I  have  shown  to  be  a  natural 
arrangement.  That  arrangement  could  be  legiti- 
mately upset  only  on  the  supposition  that  it  had 
ceased  to  be  capable  of  fulfilling  its  purpose. 
Socialism  to  be  justified  would  have  first  of  all  to 
prove  there  was  no  alternative. 

Now  I  shall  point  out  in  my  last  Confer- 
ence that  the  present  capitalistic  system  is 
capable  of  being  reformed.  Its  abuses  may  be 
corrected.  They  are  not  inherent  in  the  system. 
Hence  this  is  the  direction  in  which  we  should 
bend  our  efforts.  This  would  remain  true  even 
were  Sociahsm  to  prevail.    For  even  were  Social- 


SOCIALISM   AND   DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     283 

ism  to  prevail  it  would  not  cease  to  be  un- 
natural. 

Socialism  is  unnatural.  This  is  a  point  which 
I  wish  to  develop  in  this  chapter.  It  is  a  point 
which  will  involve  a  further  consideration  of  the 
CathoHc  doctrine  about  property,  which  I  have 
already  shown  to  be  in  accordance  with  normal 
and  healthy  human  instincts. 

Sociahsm  would  thwart  and  cripple  certain 
natural  desires  and  aspirations  in  man  which 
the  CathoUc  Church  seeks  to  foster  and  develop. 
In  the  first  place,  it  w^ould  destroy  man's  free- 
dom. 

The  Socialist  will  resent  this  statement.  He 
will  declare  that  men  and  women  are  not  free  at 
present ;  that  they  are  entangled  in  the  wheels  of 
a  cruel  industrial  system,  and  that  Socialism  alone 
can  and  will  set  them  free. 

But  I  repeat  that  under  Socialism  men  and 
women  would  not  be  free.  Even  though  they  had 
plenty  to  eat  and  drink,  and  wherewith  to  be  clothed, 
and  wherein  to  be  sheltered,  they  would  not  be 
free.  They  would  not  be  free  because  they  would 
not  be  masters  of  their  own  lives,  nor  would  they 
be  able  to  order  their  lives  as  they  chose.  I  admit 
that  the  power  of  ordering  their  lives  as  they  choose 
is  to-day,  owing   to   the  abuses  of  the  pret^ent 


284  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

system,  very  limited.  But  under  Socialism  the 
power  would  not  exist  at  all.  There  would  be  no 
room  for  self-determining  action.  There  would 
be  one  master,  one  general  manager.  In  all  the 
details  of  work  and  recreation,  at  every  turn  and 
moment  of  his  life,  a  man  would  find  his  activities 
directed  by  the  public  authority.  He  could  not 
stand  out  or  strike  against  his  employer,  for  his 
employer  would  be  the  State.  He  could  not  buy 
anything,  or  read  anything,  or  eat  anything,  or 
do  anything,  unless  the  State  chose  to  let  him. 
He  would  have  as  much  freedom  only  as  a  cog 
in  a  piece  of  machinery,  as  a  nerve  centre  in  a 
living  organism. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  since  the  man  himself 
would  be  a  part  of  the  State  he  would  exercise 
control  over  public  administration.  What  sort 
of  control,  I  ask,  would  it  be  ?  Would  it  be  com- 
parable to  the  immediate  control  which  a  man  has 
over  his  own  actions  and  destiny  ?  By  no  means. 
Man's  personal  influence  over  public  administra- 
tion would  be  as  a  drop  in  the  ocean.  It  would 
be  far  from  satisfying  that  desire  to  control  his 
own  life  to  which  every  healthy-minded  man 
clings.  It  would  certainly  not  enable  us  to  say 
of  a  man  that  he  was  free. 

Again,  Sociahsm  would  give  absolutely  no  scope 


SOCIALISM   AND   DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     285 

to  that  desire  to  own  productive  property  which 
is  natural  to  man,  and  which  is  particularly  notice- 
able in  the  case  of  the  Western  races. 

Again,  the  Socialist  objects  that  this  desire  can 
only  be  gratified  by  a  few  under  the  present  system. 
To  this  I  reply  that  this  is  due  to  the  abuses  that 
have  crept  into  the  system,  and  not  to  the  system 
itself.  Because  few  only  can  satisfy  that  desire 
to-day,  is  that  a  reason  for  making  it  impossible 
for  any  one  at  all  to  satisfy  it  ? 

I  believe  that  this  desire  to  own  productive 
property  is  a  strong,  healthy,  and  natural  desire. 
It  is  sometliing  much  more  solid  than  a  mere  desire 
to  possess  the  comforts  and  conveniences  of  life. 
Neither  is  it  a  mere  desire  to  exploit  the  labour  of 
others.  It  is  a  desire  to  protect  one's  freedom, 
to  secure  one's  independence,  to  preserve  one's 
personal  respect,  to  assert  one's  manhood. 

This  last  point  has  been  well  developed  by  Mr. 
Belloc  in  a  paper  entitled  An  Examination  of 
Socialism :  — 

"Where  few  own,  the  mass  who  do  not  own  at 
all  are  under  a  perpetual  necessity  to  abase  them- 
selves in  a  number  of  little  details.  That  is  why 
industrial  societies  fight  so  badly  compared  with 
societies  of  peasant  proprietors.  The  mass  of  the 
population  gets  trained  to  the  sacrifice  of  honour ; 


286  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

it  gets  used  to  being  ordered  about  by  the  capital- 
ist, and  partially  loses  its  manhood.  If  there 
were  but  one  capitalist,  the  State,  this  evil  would 
certainly  be  exaggerated.  Men  would  necessarily 
have  lost  all  power  of  expression  for  the  sentiment 
known  as  personal  honour ;  they  would  have  one 
absolute  master,  all  forms  of  personal  seclusion 
from  whom  would  be  impossible.  This,  when  it 
is  stated  in  the  midst  of  modern  evils,  appears  a 
very  small  point ;  but  those  who  have  passed  by 
compulsion  from  a  higher  to  a  lower  standard  of 
personal  honour  can  testify  how  vital  a  point  is 
that  honour  in  the  scheme  of  human  happiness." 

And  finally  we  may  take  higher  ground  and 
consider  not  merely  the  economic  disadvantages 
of  Socialism,  or  its  failure  to  satisfy  human  needs, 
but  its  inherent  injustice. 

A  government  for  the  public  good  may  place 
considerable  limitations  on  the  acquisition  and 
control  and  use  of  property.  But  for  the  govern- 
ment to  seek  to  take  all  productive  property  away 
from  its  owners  must  necessarily  be  an  act  of 
rank  injustice.  It  could  only  be  justified  by 
absolute  necessity,  and  that  necessity  does  not 
and  cannot  exist. 

As  Pope  Leo  XIII  says  in  the  Encyclical :  — 

''When  man  thus  turns  the  activity  of  his  mind 


SOCIALISM   AND    DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     287 

and  the  strength  of  his  body  towards  procuring 
the  fruits  of  nature,  by  such  acts  he  makes  his 
own  that  portion  of  nature's  field  which  he  cul- 
tivates —  that  portion  on  which  he  leaves,  as  it 
were,  the  impress  of  his  individuality  ;  and  it  can- 
not but  be  just  that  he  should  possess  that  portion 
as  his  own,  and  have  a  right  to  hold  it  without 
any  one  being  justified  in  violating  that  right." 

Man  is  a  free  being  and  his  whole  nature  rebels 
against  the  injustice  of  depriving  him  of  what  by 
the  legitimate  exercise  of  his  faculties  he  has  made 
his  own.  "\^^lether  what  he  has  made  be  itself 
productive  or  not  makes  no  difference.  His  senti- 
ment of  justice  is  outraged  by  its  deprivation,  save 
where  such  confiscation  is  absolutely  necessary  for 
the  well-being  and  safety  of  the  community. 

Now  in  order  to  grasp  the  full  significance  of 
the  Catholic  doctrine  of  private  capital  we  must 
examine  at  some  length  what  the  Church  has  to 
say  about  the  acquisition  of  property  and  the  limi- 
tations of  property.  In  this  way,  so  it  seems  to 
me,  we  shall  put  ourselves  in  an  impregnable 
position  against  the  specious  arguments  of  the 
Socialist. 

All  men,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  have  the  right  to  own  capital.  They 
have  the  right  to  own  capital  for  the  excellent 


288  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

reason  that  they  are  men.  But  to  possess  the 
right  to  own  capital  is  not  the  same  as  actually 
to  possess  it.  All  men  because  they  are  men 
have  an  equal  right  to  own  capital ;  but  they 
have  not  all  an  equal  right  to  own  the  same  capital. 
The  right  which  we  all  equally  possess  may  be 
called  an  abstract  right.  It  does  not  beget  or 
bequeath  to  us  the  property.  We  have  to  make 
the  abstract  right  concrete,  to  exercise  it,  before 
we  can  acquire  the  property. 

I  remember  a  parish  priest  in  Ireland  sa3dng  to 
his  poverty-stricken  flock  in  Mayo,  during  Lent : 
"My  brethren,  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  gives 
you  permission  to  eat  meat  three  times  a  week. 
But  the  Lord  knows  where  ye'll  get  it  from." 

It  is  much  the  same  with  the  right  of  property. 
By  virtue  of  it  we  may  acquire  and  hold  property 
—  supposing  that  we  can  get  it. 

It  might  seem  as  though  a  vague,  shadowy  right 
of  this  sort  were  of  very  little  practical  moment. 
But  this  is  not  the  case.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
abstract  right  of  possessing  private  capital  is 
bitterly  attacked  in  these  days ;  and  we  have  to 
vindicate  the  great  basic  principles  upon  which  the 
true  Catholic  doctrine  of  property  rests.  Before 
proving  that  this  man  has  a  right  to  this  property,  I 
must  prove  that  man  in  general  has  a  natural  right 


SOCIALISM   AND    DUTIES   OF    OWNERSHIP     289 

to  own  property  in  general.     And  this  I  have  just 
attempted  to  do. 

But  it  is  no  less  important  to  go  on  to  show 
how  this  right  of  ownership  may  be  made  concrete. 
The  right  would  indeed  be  useless  if  it  could  not 
be  exercised.  God,  who  has  given  us  the  right,  has 
also  given  us  legitimate  methods  of  employing 
that  right  and  realizing  it. 

Now  there  are  certain  well-recognized  methods 
by  which  property  may  legitimately  and  justly 
come  into  a  man's  possession.  I  may  be  given  a 
farm,  or  I  may  be  bequeathed  a  farm,  or  I  may 
buy  a  farm  in  the  market.  In  each  case  the  farm 
becomes  my  property. 

But  a  further  question  will  arise.  The  man 
who  sold  or  gave  me  the  farm  must  have  owned 
it  himself  before  he  could  transfer  it  to  me.  What 
was  his  title  of  ownership  ?  If  I  answer  that  it 
was  purchase  or  gift,  I  am  driven  further  and 
further  back,  until  I  come  to  the  first  person  who 
owned  the  farm,  the  original  owner.  What  claim 
had  the  first  owner  to  acquire  it  ?  In  other  words, 
I  want  to  know  the  ultimate  justification  and  title 
of  ownership.  Sale  and  gift  and  other  methods 
by  which  property  changes  hands  are  derived  and 
secondary  titles.  To  justify  them  I  must  justify 
the  action  of  the  man  who  was  the  first  occupier 


290  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

of  the  land.  If  the  first  proprietor  had  not  just 
title  to  the  land,  subsequent  transference  cannot 
be  justified.  And  although  practically  all  ac- 
quisition of  property  is  nowadays  of  this  derived 
or  secondary  character,  yet  we  must  make  sure 
of  our  claims  by  examining  the  original  title 
deeds. 

Now  the  Catholic  Church  teaches  that  under 
certain  recognized  conditions  a  man  may  acquire 
property  simply  by  occupying  it. 

What  are  these  conditions  ?  In  the  first  place, 
the  article  in  question  (whether  land  or  anything 
else)  must  not  have  been  occupied  by  any  one 
else.  It  must  be  res  nullius.  Secondly,  the 
act  of  occupying  it  must  be  definite  and  effective 
and  manifested  by  some  external  sign.  A  man 
cannot  land  on  a  newly  discovered  continent  and 
say  with  a  sweep  of  his  arm,  ''In  my  own  name  I 
proclaim  all  this  continent  to  be  mine."  He  must 
mark  out  the  ground  he  intends  to  occupy  by  some 
distinct  sign.  If  he  cultivates  the  land  or  puts 
his  labour  into  it,  his  title  becomes  still  more  clear. 
But  this  is  not  necessary.  It  is  enough  that  he 
should  be  able  to  supply  juridical  proof  that  he 
has  in  reality  occupied  it. 

Observe  well  that  the  mere  fact  of  occupation 
does  not  in  itself  constitute  the  right  to  occupy  it. 


SOCIALISM   AND   DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     291 

I  must  have  the  right  to  occupy  a  thing  before  I 
occupy  it,  otherwise  I  have  no  title  to  the  occupa- 
tion. My  act  of  occupation  is  merely  a  juridical 
fact  which  turns  a  latent  right  into  an  actual 
right,  an  indefinite  one  into  a  definite  one.  By 
my  act  of  occupation,  my  natural  right,  given  me 
by  God,  receives  its  final  determination;  it  is 
put  into  exercise. 

How  do  I  show  that  mere  occupation  of  a  thing 
is  sufficient  determination  of  my  natural  right  to 
own  property  ? 

I  show  it  first  by  appealing  to  universal  practice. 
In  all  ages  such  an  act  of  occupation  has  been 
recognized  as  conferring  a  just  title  to  ownership. 
Study  the  methods  by  which  in  the  States  and  in 
Canada  men  have  acquired  property,  and  you  will 
find  that  the  method  I  refer  to  obtains. 

Again,  there  must  be  some  method  by  which 
man's  right  to  acquire  and  hold  property  can  be 
exercised.  It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  all 
men  possess  a  right  which  no  man  can  enjoy.  But 
no  other  method  of  exercising  this  right  can  be  sug- 
gested ;  for  the  supposition  that  labour  alone  con- 
fers this  right  is  quite  untenable.  (Cf.  Cathrein, 
"  Moral  Phil.,"  n.  378.)  Hence,  we  are  driven  to 
conclude  that  the  recognized  and  traditional 
method  of  acquiring  property  in  the  first  instance 


292  SOCIALISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY 

is  in  fact  the  only  adequate  and  satisfactory 
method. 

Note  that  this  method  violates  no  man's  rights ; 
for  occupation  is  only  a  valid  title  in  the  case  of 
what  is  previously  unoccupied.  By  occupying  a 
piece  of  land  I  am  not  wronging  Peter  and  John, 
who  have  not  occupied  it  before  me.  I  am  not 
wronging  the  community,  for,  as  we  have  seen, 
private  ownership  is  required  for  social  welfare. 
I  am  not  wronging  the  State,  for  the  State  is 
not  the  owner  of  all  property.  I  am  merely  exer- 
cising a  right  which  I  hold  from  nature,  and  exer- 
cising it  in  a  natural  way. 

Of  course  my  action  in  so  doing  may  be  limited 
by  other  considerations.  I  cannot  occupy  a 
whole  district  if  such  occupation  will  result  in 
misery  for  the  rest  of  the  community.  To  this 
point  I  will  return  later  when  dealing  with  the 
limitations  to  the  right  of  ownership.  At  present 
I  am  merely  defending  the  traditional  method  of 
exercising  that  right. 

Let  me  here  dispose  of  an  objection  which 
was  raised  and  refuted  more  than  two  thousand 
years  ago,  but  has  been  popularized  by  the  late 
Henry  George.  ("Progress  and  Poverty,"  pp. 
212-224.) 

"Has  the  first  comer  at  a  banquet  the  right  to 


SOCIALISM   AND    DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     293 

turn  back  all  the  chairs  and  claim  that  none  of 
the  other  guests  shall  partake  of  the  food  provided, 
except  as  they  make  terms  with  him  ?  Does  the 
first  man  who  presents  a  ticket  at  the  door  of  a 
theatre  and  passes  in,  acquire  by  his  priority  the 
right  to  shut  the  doors  and  have  the  performance 
go  on  for  him  alone  ?" 

"In  Uke  manner,"  contends  Henry  George,  ''our 
rights  to  take  and  possess  cannot  be  exclusive." 

St.  Thomas  answers  this  very  objection. 
(II.  IF",  Q.  66,  a.  2.)  He  points  out  that  the  man 
who  came  first  into  the  theatre  would  do  no  wrong 
by  preparing  the  way  for  others.  He  would  only 
do  wrong  if  he  prevented  others  from  enjoying  the 
show.  "And  similarly  a  rich  man  does  no  wrong 
if,  being  the  first  to  take  possession  of  what  was 
to  begin  with  common  property,  he  lets  others 
also  have  the  benefit  of  it;  but  he  sins  if  he 
excludes  others  from  the  use  of  it  in  their 
necessity." 

Observe  that  St.  Thomas  does  not  regard  the 
possession  of  private  capital  as  a  keeping  out  of 
other  people  from  the  use  of  the  good  things  of  the 
earth.  On  the  contrary,  he  regards  it  as  a  natural 
and  divinely  sanctioned  arrangement  which  is  for 
the  advantage  of  society,  and  tends  to  bring  those 
good  things  within  the  reach  of  all.     The  owner 


294  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

of  capital  "prepares  the  way  "  for  others,  he  does 
not  exclude  them.  He  renders  service  to  the 
community.  His  right  of  property  carries  with  it 
certain  social  obligations. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  on  this  matter  is  so 
important  that  I  must  be  allowed  to  set  it  forth 
in  some  detail.  If  we  do  not  grasp  it,  we  shall  fall 
into  the  mistakes  made  by  socialist  writers  who 
claim  to  find  Socialism  in  St.  Thomas  and  the 
Fathers. 

In  the  first  instance  we  must  bear  in  mind  the 
distinction  between  the  control  of  property,  and 
the  use  and  enjoyment  of  property.  Socialists 
admit  the  distinction,  but  seem  incapable  of  recog- 
nizing it  when  it  appears  in  the  writings  of  a 
Catholic  author. 

I  may  have  the  control  of  a  thing  without  being 
allowed  the  use  of  it.  And  I  may  have  the  use 
of  a  thing  without  having  the  control  of  it.  Let 
me  illustrate  my  meaning. 

In  a  family  the  children  have  the  use  of  their 
clothing,  but  not  the  control  of  it.  The  parents 
have  the  control,  but  not  the  use  of  it.  My  right 
to  enjoy  the  use  of  a  public  park  or  library 
gives  me  no  right  to  manage  and  control  it.  The 
Baths  Committee  have  the  control  of  the  women's 
baths,  but  not  the  use  of  them.    The  Prisons' 


SOCL\LISM   AND   DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     295 

Commissioners  have  the  control  of  the  convict's 
cell,  but  not  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  it.  I 
may  have  the  use  of  train  service,  but  not  the 
control  of  it.  I  may  have  the  control  of  a  baby- 
cart,  but  not  the  use  of  it. 

Now  this  distinction  must  be  constantly  kept 
in  mind  if  we  are  to  understand  the  Catholic 
doctrine  of  the  right  of  property.  The  Church 
says  certain  things  about  the  control  of  property. 
She  says  certain  other  things  about  the  use  and 
enjoyment  of  it.  If  we  confuse  the  two,  we  shall 
make  her  talk  Sociahsm,  which  is  the  last  thing 
she  wants  to  do. 

What,  then,  does  the  Church  say  about  the  control 
of  property  ?  She  says  that  individuals  and  fami- 
lies may  very  properly  possess  such  control.  Pri- 
vate control  is  not  only  licit,  it  is  as  we  have  seen, 
socially  necessary.  The  right  to  possess  private 
capital  is  exclusive,  and  perpetual,  and  trans- 
missible. A  man  does  not  lose  his  right  to  his 
own  property  even  though  he  makes  bad  use  of 
such  right. 

But  when  the  Church  speaks  of  the  use  of  prop- 
erty, she  uses  very  different  language.  The  right 
to  control  property  is  an  exclusive  right.  The 
right  to  use  property,  however,  is  of  a  different 
nature.     As  far  as  the  use  of  things  goes,  says  St. 


296  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Thomas,  ''man  should  not  consider  his  outward 
possessions  as  his  own,  but  as  common  to  all,  so 
as  to  share  them  without  hesitation  when  others 
are  in  need."  Pope  Leo  XIII,  in  his  Encyclical, 
"  Rerum  No  varum,"  quotes  these  very  words,  pref- 
acing them  by  the  significant  expression,  ''The 
Church  replies  without  hesitation  in  the  words  of 
the  same  holy  Doctor." 

The  Cathohc  doctrine  as  to  the  use  of  property 
is  very  clear  and  very  definite,  very  strong  and 
very  striking.  It  is  poles  asunder  from  the  egotis- 
tical view  of  the  use  of  property  which  unfortunately 
prevails  in  our  capitalistic  society,  and  about  which 
I  shall  say  something  presently.  The  Catholic 
Church  regards  property  not  as  a  mere  means  to 
selfish  enjoyment,  but  as  a  public  trust.  The 
possessor  of  capital  is  a  steward,  exercising  exclu- 
sive control  of  something  from  the  use  of  which 
he  must  not  exclude  others  in  their  need. 

In  other  words,  property,  according  to  Catholic 
teaching,  has  a  definite  social  function.  A  Catho- 
lic would  not  indeed  say  that  private  ownership 
is  a  social  function ;  for  this  might  imply  that  the 
right  is  derived  from  society  and  that  owners  are 
merely  the  delegates  and  employees  of  society. 
This  is  not  the  case.  The  right  is  a  natural  right 
and  springs  from  the  right  to  live  a  normal,  social 


SOCIALISM   AND   DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     297 

life  possessed  by  every  individual.  But,  never- 
theless, the  Church  affirms  that  ownership  has  a 
social  role,  social  duties,  a  social  function. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  had  the  Catholic 
doctrine  as  to  the  use  of  property  been  generally 
recognized  and  acted  upon,  the  social  problem 
could  never  have  reached  its  present  critical  stage. 
For  the  Church  bans  and  denounces  that  selfish 
view  of  property  which  has  led  to  the  present 
disorganization  of  society.  And  in  this,  her  teach- 
ing, she  has  been  unfaltering  and  uniform,  from  the 
time  when  Christ  threatened  those  who  misused 
their  right  to  property  with  eternal  damnation, 
down  to  the  day  when  Pope  Leo  XIII  strove  to 
recall  modern  Capitalism  to  a  sense  of  its  obli- 
gations. 

Wealth  is  a  trust.  Rich  men  are  stewards. 
They  must  give  of  their  superfluities  to  those  who 
need  them.  They  are  not  left  free  in  the  matter. 
A  rigorous  obligation  is  imposed  upon  them. 

Observe  the  splendid  consistency  of  the  Catho- 
lic doctrine.  The  very  same  principle  which  es- 
tablishes the  right  of  private  property  also  es- 
tablishes its  limitations.  The  doctrine  is  based 
upon  God's  law,  it  secures  God's  rights,  it  corre- 
sponds to  the  highest  human  sentiments  of  mutual 
love   and   of   social   solidarity.     It   prevents   the 


298  SOCIALISM  AND   CHRISTIANITY 

goods  of  the  earth  from  becoming  the  prey  of  the 
selfish  few.  It  opens  out  to  all  men  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  good  things  of  the  earth.  If  strictly 
observed,  it  mitigates  the  lot  of  the  poor,  while  at 
the  same  time  it  preserves  the  social  order  by  up- 
holding the  right  of  private  control.  It  recog- 
nizes the  element  of  truth  in  the  two  exaggerated 
theories  of  absolute  ownership  and  of  Sociahsm. 
It  unites  private  control  with  common  use. 

The  Catholic  theory  is  the  only  theory  which 
is  proof  against  the  criticism  of  Socialists.  Those 
who  deny  that  the  use  of  property  is  common  have 
no  answer  to  give  when  the  Socialist  points  to  the 
awful  contrast  which  at  present  exists  between 
luxurious  and  destitute  classes.  The  Catholic, 
like  the  Socialist,  denounces  the  modern  evils  of 
Capitalism;  but  he  would  abolish  these  evils  not 
by  making  control  public  but  by  making  use 
common ;  by  making  it  obligatory  in  charity  on 
the  rich  to  give  of  their  abundance  to  those  who 
are  in  need  of  material  help. 

It  would  take  us  too  long  to  examine  in  detail 
the  magnificent  system  of  social  obligations  which 
the  Catholic  Church  has  built  up.  That  system 
has  its  firm  roots  in  theology  and  philosophy,  it 
satisfies  every  requirement  of  justice  and  charity, 
it  takes  account  of  man  both  as  an  individual  and 


SOCIALISES!   AND    DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     299 

as  a  member  of  society.  Let  me  briefly  enumerate 
some  of  its  features. 

Of  the  obligation  to  relieve  those  in  extreme 
necessity  I  have  already  spoken.  Other  obliga- 
tions also  exist;  that,  for  instance,  of  paying  a 
just  wage  to  servants  and  employees.  This  is 
an  obligation  of  strict  justice.  The  salary  given 
must  be  suflacient  to  support  the  wage-earner. 
If,  under  the  pressure  of  necessity,  a  workingman 
accepts  less  than  a  living  wage,  the  Church  de- 
clares that  the  contract  is  not  only  harsh  and 
cruel  but  also  invalid  and  unjust.  The  Church 
will  not  listen  to  those  who  say  that  such  con- 
tracts are  merely  a  private  matter  between  mas- 
ter and  man,  and  that  if  the  workman  accepts 
bad  conditions  because  he  cannot  get  better  ones, 
yet  he  freely  contracts.  Pope  Leo  XIII,  in  the 
Encyclical  so  often  quoted,  points  out  that  the 
man  in  such  a  case  is  not  really  free.  He  is  the 
victim  of  force  and  fraud. 

There  are  other  duties  of  strict  justice  which  are 
too  often  overlooked.  Too  many  forget  that  to 
put  off  paying  debts  to  tradesmen  is  a  gross  act 
of  injustice  persistently  denounced  by  the  Church. 

But  let  us  pass  from  duties  of  justice  to  duties 
of  charity.  And  let  me  point  out  that  the  obliga- 
tion may  be  as  grave  in  one  case  as  in  the  other. 


300  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

The  Catholic  notion  of  charity  is  often  misun- 
derstood, and  some  seem  to  imagine  that  because 
a  duty  is  a  ''duty  of  charity, "  it  may  be  neglected. 
The  difference  between  justice  and  charity  is 
important,  and  has  important  consequences,  es- 
pecially as  regards  the  obligation  of  restitution. 
But  this  does  not  mean  that  charity  is  optional. 
Christ  threatens  with  eternal  punishment  those 
who  neglect  to  practise  it. 

What,  then,  are  the  ''duties  of  charity"  con- 
nected with  ownership?  Here  are  some  of 
them :  — 

1.  There  is  the  grave  obligation  to  help  the 
poor.  This  is  an  absolute  command.  The  teach- 
ing of  the  Church  on  this  point  has  been  constant. 
Pope  Leo  XIII  writes  thus :  — 

"True,  no  one  is  commanded  to  distribute  to 
others  that  which  is  required  for  his  own  needs  and 
those  of  his  household ;  nor  to  give  away  what  is 
reasonably  required  to  keep  up  becomingly  his 
condition  in  life;  'for  no  one  ought  to  live  other 
than  becomingly.'  But  when  what  necessity  de- 
mands has  been  supplied,  and  one's  standing 
fairly  taken  thought  for,  it  becomes  a  duty  to 
give  to  the  indigent  out  of  what  remains  over. 
Of  that  which  remaineth,  give  alms.  It  is  a  duty, 
not  of  justice   (save  in  extreme  cases),   but  of 


SOCIALISM   AND   DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     301 

Christian  charity  —  a  duty  not  enforced  by  hu- 
man law.  But  the  laws  and  judgments  of  men 
must  yield  place  to  the  laws  and  judgments  of 
Christ,  the  true  God,  Who  in  many  ways  urges 
on  His  followers  the  practice  of  almsgiving  —  '  It 
is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive ; '  and  Who 
will  count  a  kindness  done  or  refused  to  the  poor 
as  done  or  refused  to  Himself.  'As  long  as  you 
did  it  to  one  of  My  least  brethren,  you  did  it  to  Me.' 
To  sum  up,  then,  what  has  been  said:  Whoever 
has  received  from  the  divine  bounty  a  large  share 
of  temporal  blessings,  whether  they  be  external 
and  corporeal,  or  gifts  of  the  mind,  has  received 
them  for  the  purpose  of  using  them  for  the  per- 
fecting of  his  own  nature,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
that  he  may  employ  them,  as  the  steward  of 
God's  Providence,  for  the  benefit  of  others.  *He 
that  hath  a  talent,'  says  St.  Gregory  the  Great, 
*  let  him  see  that  he  hide  it  not ;  he  that  hath 
abundance,  let  him  quicken  himself  to  mercy  and 
generosity ;  he  that  hath  art  and  skill,  let  him  do 
his  best  to  share  the  use  and  the  utility  thereof 
with  his  neighbour.'  " 

Note  that  this  duty  being  one  of  charity,  the 
poor  have  not  a  right  of  strict  justice  to  the  super- 
fluous wealth  of  the  rich.  They  have  no  legal  claim 
to  it,  as  they  have  to  just  wages  or  debts.     But 


302  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

the   rich   are   nevertheless   absolutely   bound   in 
charity  to  give  it. 

2.  This  duty  of  charity  is  specially  urgent  in 
the  case  of  those  more  closely  connected  with  us 
by  natural  or  social  ties.  The  employer  has 
special  duties  of  charity  towards  his  employed, 
the  master  to  his  servants,  the  landowner  to  his 
tenants.  There  is  more  than  a  mere  cash  nexus 
between  them :  there  is  a  social  bond,  and  it 
involves  its  obligations. 

3.  We  may  add  various  other  obligations 
equally  certain,  sacred,  and  strict  which  may  be 
called  duties  of  ''natural  equity."  ^ 

Under  this  head  may  be  enumerated  the  fol- 
lowing duties  which  attach  to  property :  — 

1.  To  respect  the  dignity  of  the  poor  and  of  the 
working  classes. 

2.  To  enable  employees  to  fulfil  their  duties 
as  husbands,  fathers,  citizens,  and  Christians. 

3.  To  avoid  imposing  work  which  is  beyond  the 
strength  of  workers  or  unsuited  to  their  age  or 
sex. 

4.  To  compensate  employees  for  accidents. 
This  becomes  a  matter  of  strict  justice  when  the 
accident  is  due  to  the  employer's  fault. 

1  Some  prefer  the  term  "  social  justice."  But  this  expres- 
sion is  vague  and  may  easily  lead  to  confusion. 


SOCIALISM   AND    DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     303 

5.  To  safeguard  the  innocence  of  children  and 
the  honour  of  women. ^ 

We  might  add  yet  other  duties  which  press 
upon  the  employer :  those,  for  instance,  of  giving 
good  example,  of  supporting  religion,  of  promoting 
the  political  and  social  education  of  their  people 
and  the  material  prosperity  of  the  district,  and 
also  of  cultivating  that  cordial  personal  contact 
with  their  employees  which  is  so  necessary  for 
social  peace  and  well-being.  Absenteeism  is  not 
blessed  by  the  Catholic  Church. 

And  finally,  what  is  the  duty  of  the  State  tow- 
ards the  right  of  property  ? 

The  State  must  recognize  the  right,  respect  it, 
protect  it.  The  State  may  also  be  called  upon  to 
regulate  and  limit  its  use.  I  have  already  ex- 
plained the  purpose  and  aim  of  civil  authority. 
That  purpose  and  aim  regulates  the  limits  of  civil 
interference.  When  public  rights  conflict  with 
private,  the  latter  must  give  way :  and  in  this 
matter  the  State  is  the  arbiter.  Yet  as  Pere 
Antoine  points  out,  it  may  not  be  arbitrary  in  its 
arbitration.  Its  right  to  limit  the  use  of  prop- 
erty springs  from  and  is  limited  by  its  incontes- 

•  (These  duties  are  insisted  upon  in  the  Pope's  Encyclical  and 
have  been  explained  at  length  by  the  Abb6  Garriguet  in  his 
work,  "Regime  de  la  Propri6t6.") 


304  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

table  right  to  existence  and  self-preservation,  by- 
its  right  "to  furnish  citizens,  by  means  of  social 
organization,  with  the  possibility  of  developing, 
by  private  initiative,  their  personal  well-being." 

The  State  has  no  direct  and  immediate  power 
over  private  property,  but  it  may  reconcile  its 
mode  of  acquisition  and  its  use  with  the  common 
good.  The  right  of  the  State  is  a  power  of  juris- 
diction falling  directly  on  individuals  and  only 
indirectly  on  property. 

This  principle  will  be  found  worked  out  in 
detail  by  Pere  Antoine  in  his  excellent  work  just 
referred  to.  He  shows  how  the  State  should 
promote  the  stability  of  the  family  by  making 
wise  laws  of  inheritance,  how  it  should  frame 
legislation  which  will  give  a  special  measure  of 
protection  to  the  working  classes,  and  how  it 
should  facilitate  division  of  landed  property, 
counteract  its  abnormal  accumulation  in  a  few 
hands,  and  give  the  fullest  protection  to  all 
healthy  forms  of  association. 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  the  right  to  own  prop- 
erty is,  in  the  eyes  of  the  Catholic  Church,  hedged 
about  with  very  serious  obhgations,  and  that  the 
State  must  cooperate  in  enforcing  them.  If 
these  obligations  were  realized  and  practised,  we 
should  be  halfway  to  a  solution  of   our   social 


SOCIALISM   AND   DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     305 

problems.  But  it  is  to  be  feared  that  these  obli- 
gations are  often  overlooked  even  by  Catholic 
employers.  The  truth  is  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Church  in  these  matters  has  been  obscured  by  the 
anti-Cathohc  wave  of  economic  Liberahsm  which 
swept  over  Europe  during  the  last  century,  but 
which  is  at  last  beginning  to  ebb.  The  theory 
of  the  "absolute  right  of  property,"  which  regards 
property  as  existing  merely  for  the  benefit  of  the 
owner,  is  an  exaggeration  no  less  mischievous  than 
the  opposite  exaggeration  which  it  has  produced 
by  a  natural  reaction  and  which  forms  the  basis 
of  SociaUsm. 

Let  me  here  summarize  the  excellent  criticism 
of  the  false  theory  which  is  to  be  found  in  the 
treatise  of  Abb6  Garriguet. 

1.  The  Theory  is  anti-Christian,  for  it  is  based 
on  egoism.  Christianity  says  we  are  all  children 
of  one  Father,  and  have  mutual  duties. 

2.  The  Theory  is  anti-Natural.  It  is,  as 
Bishop  Ketteler  says,  a  crime  against  nature, 
because  it  uses  for  selfish  gratification  what  God 
has  intended  for  the  service  of  all :  and  also  be- 
cause it  stifles  noble  sentiments,  and  breeds  cal- 
lousness, indifference,  and  insensibility  to  human 
suffering. 

3.  The  Theory  has  never  been  admitted  by  the 


306  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Church.  The  Popes,  as  civil  rulers,  persistently 
obliged  the  great  landowners  during  seven  cen- 
turies to  provide  the  labourers  with  small  hold- 
ings, even  at  considerable  loss  to  themselves.  If 
a  landowner  refused  to  cultivate  his  own  land, 
any  person  whatever  might  occupy  and  culti- 
vate (either  free  of  charge  or  on  payment  of  a 
small  rent  in  kind)  one-third  of  the  land  thus  left 
uncultivated.  The  owner  who  attempted  to 
evict  such  a  tenant  was  heavily  fined.  Church 
land  came  under  this  provision. 

4.  The  Theory  has  never  been  admitted  in 
practice  by  any  government.  The  State  has 
always  claimed  to  impose  limits  to  the  use  of 
private  property  whenever  the  public  welfare  has 
required  it.  Bear  in  mind  that  the  only  effective 
way  of  refuting  the  socialist  position  is  by  the 
statement  of  the  Catholic  position.  When  we 
grasp  the  teaching  of  the  Church  with  regard  to 
the  right  of  property,  its  nature  and  origin,  its 
limitations  and  consequences,  we  see  that  it  pro- 
vides a  remedy  for  the  abuses  against  which  So- 
cialism rightly  protests,  while  at  the  same  time 
it  avoids  the  errors  and  exaggerations  the  social- 
istic solution  involves. 

The  essence  of  Socialism  is  that  all  the  means 
of  production  should  be  transferred  to  the  com- 


SOCIALISM   AND    DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     307 

munity.  We  have  seen  that  such  a  transference 
would  be  contrary  both  to  justice  and  to  natural 
law. 

Now  some  of  my  readers  may  endeavour  to 
sweep  away  the  whole  of  the  foregoing  argument 
by  denying  the  basis  upon  which  it  rests.  They 
may  refuse  to  allow  that  we  have  any  knowledge 
of  God's  will  in  the  matter,  or  indeed  of  His  very 
existence.  They  may  take  their  stand  upon  a 
materialistic  theory  of  evolution.  They  may 
refuse  to  beheve  in  a  supernatural  order.  They 
may  decline  to  regard  the  Catholic  Church  as  the 
authoritative  exponent  of  the  divine  will. 

I  cannot  pursue  them  on  to  this  wider  ground 
within  the  limits  of  this  course  of  Conferences. 
But  let  me  invite  them  to  reflect  upon  an  undeni- 
able historical  fact. 

They  do  not  admit  that  the  Church  speaks 
with  divine  authority.  But  they  are  bound  to 
admit  that  the  Church  speaks  with  the  very  high- 
est human  authority.  They  deny  that  the  Church 
speaks  with  the  wisdom  of  God.  They  cannot 
deny  that  the  Church  speaks  with  the  accumulated 
wisdom  of  men.  The  Church,  at  the  very  least, 
is  the  greatest  expert  to  be  found  on  the  face  of 
the  earth  in  human  nature  and  human  history. 

No  man,  no  body  of  men,  no  institution,  can  rival 


308  SOCIALISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

her  in  experience  and  insight.  She  has  been 
studying  the  history  of  men  and  nations  for  nearly 
two  thousand  years.  Nay,  she  has  taken  the 
leading  part  in  the  making  of  that  history.  She 
is  the  greatest  fact  in  that  history.  She  has  been 
in  the  closest  contact  with  all  nations :  she  has 
watched  them  rise  and. fall.  She  is  always  teach- 
ing ;  she  is  always  learning.  She  is  always  mak- 
ing use  of  that  learning.  She  is  concerned  with 
every  aspect  of  human  life.  She  deals  with  man 
in  a  far  more  intimate  way  than  any  government 
can  do  or  wants  to  do.  She  draws  out  his  secrets, 
she  learns  his  needs,  she  divines  his  aspirations, 
she  marks  his  limitations,  she  estimates  his  possi- 
bilities, she  lifts  up  his  ambitions.  All  this  must 
be  admitted  by  the  serious  student  of  history. 

Hence  the  mere  human  authority  of  the  Church 
is  of  incalculable  weight.  She  knows  what  is  in 
man.  She  knows  what  faith  inspires  him,  what 
motives  actuate  him,  what  circumstances  affect 
him.  She  knows  what  is  essential  and  normal  to 
him,  and  what  is  merely  accidental  and  transient. 
And  when  she  says  that  the  possession  of  private 
capital  is  essential  to  the  welfare  both  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  of  society,  we  may  be  sure  she  is  right. 

She  warns  us  against  transferring  all  capital 
to  the  control  of  governments.     She  urges  us  to 


SOCIALISM   AND   DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     309 

procure  its  wide  and  equitable  distribution  among 
citizens.  She  declares  that  only  thus  can  we  en- 
sure social  stability,  peace,  and  prosperity ;  only 
thus  can  we  develop  man's  highest  possibilities. 
She  declares  that  the  instinct  to  own  capital  is  a 
part  of  our  human  outfit,  an  ineradicable  instinct 
which  we  cannot  overlook  with  impunity.  That 
is  a  message  which  no  man  can  afford  to  disregard. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  remind  you  once  more  that 
the  Catholic  teaching  about  capital,  or  private 
and  productive  ownership,  is  the  via  media  be- 
tween the  two  contradictory  theories  to  which  is 
to  be  traced  the  present  strained  relations  obtain- 
ing between  Capital  and  Labour. 

The  Catholic  Church  on  the  one  hand  rigidly 
insists  that  it  is  a  sin  against  nature  to  proclaim 
that  man  is  the  absolute  proprietor  of  all  that  he 
possesses,  and  that  he  may  convert  it  to  any  use 
he  may  think  fit,  regardless  of  the  needs  of  his 
fellow-man.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Catholic 
Church  no  less  insists  that  it  is  a  sin  against  nature 
to  proclaim  that  all  property  is  robbery,  and  that 
under  the  plea  of  philanthropy  or  what  not,  it 
ought  to  be  transferred  to  the  community  and 
socialized. 

The  Catholic  Church  condemns  and  has  always 
condemned,   as   the  writings   of   St.   Thomas  of 


310  SOCIALISM    AND   CHRISTIANITY 

Aquin,  who  wrote  on  the  subject  luminously  six 
hundred  years  ago,  abundantly  testifies,  both  these 
contradictory  theories  about  ownership.  The 
Church  takes  her  stand  between  these  two  con- 
flicting dogmas  about  private  property.  Recog- 
nizing that  man  in  order  to  realize  himself  and  to 
fulfil  his  mission  in  life  as  an  individual  and  as 
head  of  a  family,  must  possess  some  sort  of  prop- 
erty, she  says  that  God,  who  is  the  One,  supreme 
Proprietor  of  the  Goods  of  the  earth,  has  given  over 
to  man  the  control  and  management  of  property, 
but  only  as  His  stewards ;  so  that  while  he  may 
make  use  of  so  much  of  it  as  is  necessary  for  the 
support  and  up-keep  of  his  station  in  life,  he  is 
bound  under  pain  of  sin  to  distribute  of  his 
superfluities  to  those  of  his  brethren  who  stand 
in  need  of  them.  The  Catholic  Church  upholds 
and  safeguards  the  right  of  private  and  productive 
ownership  in  the  sense  I  have  explained. 

But  while  she  thus  sets  her  face  as  flint  against 
the  iniquitous  doctrine  that  property  is  robbery, 
she  utters  her  anathemas  no  less  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly against  the  dictum  that  a  man  may  do 
just  as  he  pleases  with  what  is  called  his  own. 

Let  me  repeat,  man  is  God's  steward  and  will 
have  to  give  an  account  of  his  stewardship.  He  will 
have  to  give  an  account  of  how  he  got  his  prop- 


SOCIALISM   AND    DUTIES   OF   OWNERSHIP     311 

erty,  of  how  he  managed  his  property,  and  of  how 
he  used  his  property,  and  also  of  how  he  resisted 
the  encroachments  of  those  who  dared  to  lay 
hands  on  his  property,  forgetting  or  ignoring  the 
divine  precepts:  ''Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  "Thou 
shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  goods." 

Defend  your  private  property.  Remember  that 
it  represents  the  labours  of  your  father,  the  solici- 
tudes of  your  mother ;  remember  that  in  defend- 
ing it  you  are  guarding  your  home,  you  are  pro- 
tecting your  children,  you  are  providing  for  your 
family,  you  are  upholding  those  two  strong  pillars 
—  Property  and  Family  —  on  which  your  country 
depends  for  its  material  and  natural  support, 
strength,  and  stability. 


IX 

SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  PROMISES 

It  is  only  by  going  among  the  people  and  inter- 
changing talk  with  them  that  you  can  arrive  at  a 
true  and  just  estimate  of  what  they  are,  of  what 
they  have,  and  of  what  they  really  think  about 
such  problems  as  Socialism  and  kindred  subjects. 
When  you  win  the  confidence  of  the  workingman 
he  keeps  nothing  back ;  he  utters  his  soul,  he  re- 
veals his  inner  self,  and  gladly  puts  before  you  his 
aims  and  ambitions  in  life. 

During  my  travels  from  the  Hudson  to  the 
Yukon,  and  whilst  steaming  on  the  Pacific  Ocean 
and  its  big  tributary  rivers,  I  made  a  point  of 
associating,  when  opportunity  offered,  with  the 
various  sections  of  the  toiling  classes  who  were 
my  fellow-travellers.  Invariably,  after  a  very 
short  interval,  they  made  me  feel  quite  at  home 
with  them,  making  me  the  companion  of  their 
thoughts  and  extending  to  me  the  hand  of  welcome 
and  of  friendship. 

You  will  ask  me :  "Did  you  find  them  innocu- 
lated    with    the    microbe    of    Socialism?     Were 

312 


SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  PROMISES  313 

they  among  those  who  believe  in  the  'redemp- 
tion of  the  people  by  the  people'  ?"  I  must  con- 
fess that  quite  a  considerable  section  of  them 
showed  very  decided  leanings  towards  Socialism. 
On  one  occasion,  whilst  chatting  with  a  group  of 
men,  made  up  of  several  nationalities,  and  fol- 
lowing various  callings,  from  that  of  the  mech- 
anician to  the  logger,  our  conversation  drifted 
to  Socialism,  and  all  its  fair  promises.  The 
chief  spokesman  of  the  party,  a  broad-shouldered, 
rough-spun  looking  overseer  of  a  railway  gang 
of  metal  layers,  said  his  reading  had  made  it 
clear  to  him  that  it  was  the  CathoHc  Church  which 
had  created  capitalism  and  the  various  consti- 
tutions making  up  the  different  governments 
ruhng  the  world  to-daj^  He  said  that  no  other 
Church  counted  for  much  among  the  working 
classes,  and  he  contended  that  the  CathoHc  Church 
itself  was  losing  ground  every  day ;  that  SociaHsm 
was  drawing  thence  some  of  its  best  recruits. 
It  was  his  strong  conviction  that  once  Catholics 
got  fused  into  true  Socialism,  they  had  no  more 
use  for  the  Church  than  "a  chauffeur  for  a  push 
cart."  I  asked  him  what  in  his  opinion  was  it 
that  drew  the  Catholic  toiler  into  the  socialist 
net  ?  He  replied  at  once  :  "First  of  all.  Catholics 
who  want  to  get  on  in  any  kind  of  business  begin 


314  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

by  joining  what  you  call  the  Secret  Societies,  and 
once  they  have  got  in  there  they  shed  their  reli- 
gion as  surely  as  the  deer  its  horns.  Besides," 
he  continued,  ''all  religions  are  the  out-put  of 
economic  conditions,  and  though  your  Church 
in  a  day  gone  by  may  have  done  something  for 
the  workingman,  her  day  is  passed;  she  is  as 
much  behind  the  times  as  the  drill  and  hammer  are 
behind  the  dredger.  She  is  a  low-grade  proposi- 
tion, and  will  never  again  strike  gold. ' '  I  reminded 
my  friend  of  what  the  Catholic  Church  was  doing 
to-day  in  the  United  States,  and  with  some  pride  I 
drew  out  not  a  short  Hst  of  her  great  and  glorious 
achievements.  But  he  only  shrugged  his  shoulders, 
and  said,  ''Maybe  she  is  all  you  say,  but  she  is 
losing  her  hold  for  all  that,  and  her  loss  is  our 
gain.  We  are  netting  them  Uke  Alaskan  salmon, 
and  no  mistake  about  it." 

With  rare  exceptions  the  bread-winner  outside 
the  Church  seems  to  be  pretty  fully  convinced  that 
the  coming  rehgion,  so-called,  of  the  workingman 
is  going  to  be  "Class  Religion" ;  that  is  to  say,  a 
"religion"  making  directly  for  the  material  and 
social  interests  of  the  toihng  classes,  and  indirectly 
for  the  social  well-being  of  humanity. 

Socialists  are  very  plausible  and  most  insinuat- 
ing.    They  have  a  patent  medicine  which  is  a 


SOCIALISM   AND   ITS  PROMISES  315 

cure-all  for  every  conceivable  grievance  and  com- 
plaint. The  vote-catching  Sociahst  will  tell  his 
hearers  that  it  is  the  high  mission  of  Socialism  to 
relieve  all  the  woes  and  wrongs  from  which  the 
social  organism  is  at  present  suffering ;  that  when 
once  the  Commonwealth  shall  have  been  estab- 
Ushed  in  their  midst,  there  will  no  longer  be  any 
occasion  for  penury  or  want,  and  that  all  social 
and  class  distinctions  will  then  be  done  away  with 
forever,  while  in  the  place  of  capital  and  labour, 
of  peer  and  peasant,  of  rich  and  poor,  there  will 
rise  up  a  common  Brotherhood  with  money  enough 
and  leisure  enough  to  go  right  round.  Then  life 
will  become  worth  living,  for  no  man  will  be  over- 
worked or  underpaid,  while  members  of  the  com- 
munity will  be  assured  of  all  that  is  needed  to 
make  their  lot  in  life  one  of  contentment  and  of 
merriment ;  in  a  word,  one  of  earthly  happiness. 

When  the  socialist  agitator  finds  himself  in  an 
agricultural  district,  with  an  audience  made  up  of 
labourers  and  small  farmers,  he  unfolds  another 
talc.  He  expatiates  upon  the  wrongs  done  to 
the  small  landholder  by  the  millionnaire  farmer 
with  his  countless  acres  under  wheat  or  other 
cereals,  and  with  outstanding  lands  laden  with 
lumber.  "These  are  the  thieves,"  he  will  toll  his 
gaping  auditory,  "who  are  robbing  you  of  a  decent 


316  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

price  for  your  crops,  these  are  the  landowners  who 
are  underselHng  you ;  see,  here  are  the  grafters  who 
are  manipulating  the  railroads,  'and  making  it  im- 
possible for  you  to  pay  the  freight  of  your  produce 
to  the  nearest  city  market.  You  have  a  real 
grievance,  you  have, ' '  exclaims  the  agitator.  ' '  For 
you  there  is  no  redress  but  SociaHsm.  Under  our 
Commonwealth  you  will  be  the  men  to  benefit  most 
of  all,  for  you  will  become  in  the  socialist  State 
the  chief  producers  of  grain  and  other  food-stuffs. 
No  longer  will  you  be  beaten  to  the  earth  by  the 
savage  competition  set  up  by  landlord  capitaHsts ; 
we  shall  see  that  you  will  have  fair  play,  fair  pay, 
and  a  market,  which  shall  under  no  conditions 
be  cornered  by  a  group  of  men,  or  by  any  single 
individual.  If  you  want  to  stick  to  the  land,  if 
you  want  to  have  fine  crops  with  an  assured  mar- 
ket, throw  in  your  lot  with  us,  who  are  your  friends, 
who  wish  you  well,  and  who  will  make  life  for  the 
small  holder  worth  while.  Lift  up  your  voices, 
and  let  your  cry  loud  and  strong  be:  'On  to 
Socialism.'  " 

On  the  other  hand,  when  the  socialist  orator's 
platform  is  not  in  the  country,  but  in  a  busy  city 
his  cry  is  changed  to  ''Down  with  the  Depart- 
ment Store."  He  gathers  round  his  soap  box  the 
small  storekeepers  with  their  customers  and  dis- 


SOCIALISM  AND   ITS  PROMISES  317 

courses  to  them  eloquently  about  the  iniquities 
of  "the  Universal  Provider."  "  But  for  these  big 
ventures,  but  for  these  colossal  stores,  you,"  he 
shouts  out,  "would  be  doing  in  this  town  a  thriv- 
ing business.  It  is  the  millionnaire  store  which 
you  are  up  against,  which  is  starving  you,  and 
which  is  ruining  and  closing  up  all  the  retail  busi- 
nesses in  this  city."  Then  the  sociahst  agitator 
will  go  on  to  assure  his  storekeeping  friends  that 
he  and  his  fellows  have  made  it  their  mission  to 
study  the  present  iniquitous  condition  of  affairs 
which  has  rendered  it  impossible  for  an  honest 
tradesman  to  hold  his  own,  and  to  keep  his  door 
open  to  the  pubhc.  "When  once  we  have  made 
a  clean  sweep  of  these  sky-scraping  department 
premises,  you,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "will  have  it 
all  your  own  way,  you  will  make  a  fine  turnover, 
for  we  shall  see  that  instead  of  having  to  compete 
in  a  heavily  handicapped  race  for  the  necessaries 
of  life,  you  will,  on  the  contrary,  be  assured  a  com- 
fortable income  on  which  to  live  and  enjoy  the 
good  things  of  time  and  sense.  If  you  want  to 
thrive  instead  of  starve,  if  you  want  success  in- 
stead of  bankruptcy,  come  over  to  our  camp. 
Unite  with  us,  and  we  will  make  short  shift  of 
these  inhuman  business  competitors.  In  their 
place  and  on  their  premises,  we  will  set  up  your 


318  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

stores,  and  from  you  only  shall  be  purchased  all 
hardware  goods,  fancy  articles,  clothing,  groceries, 
drugs,  farming  implements,  household  utensils, 
and  other  salable  articles  recognized  by  our 
Commonwealth.  Rally  to  our  red  flag,  for  under 
it,  and  under  it  only,  will  you  find  your  businesses 
supreme,  and  your  income  assured,  and  your 
own  lives  for  the  first  time  without  an  anxiety, 
a  debt,  or  a  trouble.  Your  hours  of  work  will  be 
few  and  your  time  of  leisure  ample." 

There  is  yet  another  section  of  the  community 
to  which  the  socialist  campaigner  never  forgets 
to  make  an  appeal  as  telling  as  it  is  specious.  It 
is  to  the  agnostic,  to  the  unbeliever,  and  to  the 
atheist  that  he  pours  forth  from  street  corners 
and  meeting  rooms  a  very  torrent  of  his  choicest 
eloquence.  Mounting  his  rostrum,  he  reminds 
the  groups  of  non-religious  or  irreligious  men  met 
about  him,  that  in  a  free  country  a  man  should  be 
entitled  to  hold  what  views  he  likes  about  the 
religious  question ;  that  whereas  under  the  present 
regime  men  who  are  without  some  label  or  other 
of  superstitious  belief  are  looked  down  upon  by 
a  cant-loving  community  with  suspicion,  and  are 
treated  as  though  they  were  some  pestilence- 
breeding  swamp  to  be  shunned  and  condemned 
as    unclean    and    unfit    for     citizenship,     under 


SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  PROMISES  319 

Socialism,  on  the  contrary,  it  will  be  the  men 
not  hampered  and  tethered  and  narrowed  by 
religious  sentiments,  and  the  worn-out  beliefs 
of  a  bygone  dark  age,  who  will  find  the  most 
hearty  welcome  from  the  comrades.  "No  longer 
will  you  find  yourselves  blackballed  because  you 
happen  to  have  the  courage  of  your  convictions." 
"Rehgion,"  the  special  pleading  socialist  rhetori- 
cian goes  on  to  assure  his  audience,  ''is  no  concern 
of  ours ;  it  is  a  private  affair ;  do  as  you  will 
about  it ;  only  come  and  rally  to  our  platform. 
Lift  up  your  eloquence,  pour  forth  your  views, 
lend  us  your  noble  spirit  of  independence  with 
which  to  advocate  our  cause  which  is  identified 
with  your  own.  We  need  the  support  of  men 
like  you,  who  are  not  priest-ridden.  Turn  to  us 
and  in  turn  we  will  do  you  honour,  we  will  give 
you  our  confidence,  and  will  in  a  day,  not  far 
hence,  raise  you  to  positions  of  trust  and  distinc- 
tion. Give  us  your  two  hands  and  let  us  unite, 
for  we  have  interests  in  common,  and  both  of 
us  beheve  in  shaking  off  all  tyrannical  forms  of 
religion,  as  well  as  the  iniquitous  competition 
of  all  capital."  In  a  Western  city  of  America 
I  stood  on  the  fringe  of  a  well-dressed  crowd 
cheering  to  the  echo  an  orator  whose  peroration 
to  his  anti-religious  harangue  was  a  prayer  ad- 


320  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

dressed  to  a  dollar  which  he  had  drawn  forth 
from  his  vest  pocket,  and  which  he  told  his  hearers, 
with  their  almost  unanimous  approval,  was  the 
only  god  who  nowadays  heard  the  workingman's 
prayer,  gave  him  food,  and  drink,  home  and 
clothing,  and  a  good  time  generally.  Before  he 
had  ended  I  slipped  away  to  the  nearest  police 
oflScer,  and  asked  him  if  he  could  direct  me  to 
some  recognized  socialist  meeting.  He  pointed 
to  the  crowd  from  which  I  had  come.  "That," 
I  said,  '*is  not  a  gathering  of  Socialists  but  of 
atheists,  I  have  this  moment  left  them."  "It 
is  all  the  same,"  replied  the  officer;  "when  once 
they  let  themselves  go,  I  guess  they  always  carry 
on  like  that." 

There  are  occasions  when  the  socialist  agitator 
does  not  let  himself  go,  but  is  more  guarded  in 
his  speech.  When  he  happens  to  be  in  some  more 
Catholic  district,  and  is  angling  for  the  Catholic 
vote,  the  Socialist  can  assume  an  air  almost  of 
piety.  I  well  remember  on  a  dusky  Sunday  even- 
ing, in  the  fall  of  1911,  being  drawn  to  a  gathering 
in  an  Eastern  city  park.  High  above  the  closely 
packed  meeting  stood  a  well-dressed,  well-set-up 
socialist  agitator  who  was  carefully  surveying 
and  manipulating  his  audience.  After  instructing 
them  about  his  own  merits,  and  informing  them 


SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  PROMISES  321 

that  though  personally  he  belonged  to  no  church, 
yet  he  contended  there  was  room  in  Socialism 
for  church-going  people.  He  went  on  to  say  that 
Socialists  might  believe  as  much  as  they  cared 
to  swallow  of  what  priests  and  parsons  chose 
to  toss  out  to  them.  "  Clergymen  have  a  right," 
he  said,  "to  express  their  own  individual  views 
about  religion  in  the  way  they  happen  to  think 
best.  We  do  not  want  to  hold  you  back  from  ac- 
cepting what  they  can  no  more  prove  than  you 
yourselves  can.  My  friends,  follow,  if  you  will, 
their  creed,  but  shun  their  politics.  Do  not  be- 
lieve a  word  they  say  about  Socialism,  which  is 
purely  a  political  question,  a  question  as  much 
outside  religion  as  the  Post-office  or  any  other 
economic  problem.  Catholics,"  he  continued, 
"are  beginning  in  this  liberty-loving  land  to  wake 
up ;  they  are  thinking  for  themselves,  and  are 
finding  out  that  the  priesthood  is  stepping  on 
dangerous  ground  when  it  dictates  to  the  American 
Irish  and  Germans  what  they  are  to  think  of 
the  socialist  Commonwealth."  He  turned  to 
his  hearers  and  had  the  assurance  to  tell  them 
that  the  sons  of  Erin  and  of  the  Fatherland  were 
being  recruited  into  the  ranks  of  Socialism  by 
the  thousand.  He  concluded  his  impassioned 
address  by  urging  his  hearers  not  to  take  their 


322  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

politics  from  Rome,  or  from  any  one  commissioned 
by  Rome,  but  to  look  round  for  themselves  and 
to  sever  once  and  for  all  their  political  from  their 
religious  creed,  and  to  unite  with  Socialists  in 
breaking  down  all  class  distinction,  and  all  capi- 
talist exploitation  of  labour.  This  astute  speaker 
made  a  point  of  praising  and  thanking  the  Irish 
and  Germans  in  America  for  their  sympathy  and 
support,  and  concluded  his  address  by  insinuating 
that  under  a  socialist  regime  it  would  fall  more 
especially  to  the  Celtic  race  to  become  their 
leaders,  who,  by  their  native  eloquence  and  skill, 
were  best  fitted  to  shape  and  direct  the  socialist 
State  to  its  most  glorious  destiny  —  the  realiza- 
tion of  human  happiness  on  earth. 

From  what  I  have  said  you  will  allow  that  the 
Socialist  is,  as  I  heard  an  Indian  half-breed  in 
Montana  observe,  not  a  bad  angler;  one  who 
knows  how  'Ho  bait  his  hook,  and  meat  his  trap 
for  eats."  On  a  wheel-stern,  flat-bottomed  boat 
I  was  steaming  up  the  Yukon.  Suddenly  we 
drew  alongside  a  lumber  yard  to  wood  up  and 
feed  our  engines.  One  of  the  crew  with  whom  I 
happened  to  be  in  conversation  hurried  away, 
trundling  his  wheelbarrow.  As  he  did  so  he 
observed:  ''You  see,  Father,  we  can't  carry 
enough  wood  to  make  the  round.     Between  Daw- 


SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  PROMISES  323 

son  and  White  Horse  we  have  to  log  up  six  times. 
I  guess  the  sociahst  Ship  of  State,  of  which  we 
have  been  speaking,  will  not  be  able  to  carry 
enough  stuff  to  go  round,  neither."  That  is  just 
it.  Even  on  the  supposition  that  we  did  socialize 
all  the  instruments  of  production  and  distribu- 
tion of  wealth,  there  would  not  be  enough  to  go 
round.  We  should  be  brought  to  a  dead  stand- 
still. Individuals  might  get  their  ''labour  ticket," 
but  would  they  find  what  they  wanted  ?  All 
commodities  would  be  on  an  official  pattern, 
and  you  would  be  compelled  on  all  occasions  to 
conform  your  wants  and  tastes  to  "our  own 
make,"  with  the  unlovely  consequence  that  life 
would  be  as  deadly  dull  as  that  seen  in  a  boarding- 
house,  a  charity  school,  or  a  barrack  room.  You 
would  never  be  able  to  exchange  the  "State  label" 
for  any  special  or  select  brand  more  to  your 
liking.  I  rather  fancy  the  government-labelled 
article  would  itself  run  short. 

But  this  would  be  but  one  of  many  difficulties. 
How  about  the  organization  of  the  socialist  State  ? 
In  the  United  States,  with  its  80,000,000  of  popu- 
lation, and  its  many  diverse  interests,  and  its 
varied  climate,  and  its  peoples  made  up  of  every 
nation  under  the  sun,  would  it  be  at  all  possible, 
even  to  dream  in  one's  wildest  dreams,  of  any 


324  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

practical  scheme  by  which  such  an  ever  expand- 
ing and  ever  shifting  population  could  be  welded 
by  some  central  power,  with  its  agents  all  over 
the  States,  into  an  harmoniously  working  Common- 
wealth? Why,  the  idea  even  of  such  a  possi- 
bihty  is  an  insanity;  it  argues  a  plentiful  lack 
of  knowledge  of  the  peoples  making  up  this  vast 
community,  and  it  betrays  a  pitiful  ignorance  of 
the  condition  of  things  necessarily  prevailing  in 
a  young,  vigorous,  enterprising,  and  venture- 
loving  population.  A  socialist  Commonwealth 
in  any  single  city  in  the  States,  say,  in  New  York, 
or  Chicago,  or  San  Francisco,  or  Boston,  would 
not  last  till  the  close  of  the  day  on  which  it  was 
set  up.  In  spite  of  the  special  pleading  of  Messrs. 
Bellamy,  Hillquit,  Spargo,  and  other  optimists, 
it  would  be  altogether  beyond  the  powers  of 
any  socialist  Commonwealth  to  satisfy  American 
citizens  that  they  had  been  assigned  their  right 
place  and  their  right  task  in  the  new  Republic. 
The  shoe-shiner,  for  instance,  might  think  he 
ought  to  be  the  druggist,  the  schoolmaster  might 
want  to  be  the  physician,  the  motorman  might 
wonder  why  he  was  not  the  dentist,  and  most 
probably  no  one  in  the  community  at  all  would 
allow  that  he  ought  to  be  the  city  scavenger, 
the     sewer-man,     coal-heaver,     night-watchman, 


SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  PROMISES  325 

or  the  asylum  or  prison  warden.  How,  let  me 
ask,  is  Socialism  going  to  organize  labour  in  a 
measure  to  satisfy  even  the  most  pious  of  its 
comrades?  Not  long  ago  I  happened  to  hear  a 
guest  in  a  hotel  call  a  waiter  to  order  for  neglect 
of  duty.  The  ready  answer  tossed  back  to  him 
was  this:  ''Before  long  you  will  have  to  wait 
on  yourself,  and  unless  you  get  black  or  yellow 
help,  I  guess  you  will  also  have  to  cook  for  your- 
self; we  are  nearly  through  with  all  these  class 
differences."  I  asked  my  table  waiter  whether 
that  man  had  expressed  the  view  prevaihng  gen- 
erally among  waiters.  "Yes,"  he  replied,  ''we 
are  most  of  us  comrades  now,  and  we  do  not 
believe  that  we  are  going  to  wait  much  longer  on 
those  at  whose  table  we  shall  not  have  a  right  to 
eat."  He  added,  "My  sister  is  a  lady-help  out 
West,  but  I  guess  she  eats  with  the  family." 

Here,  for  the  moment,  let  us  suppose  that  all 
the  means  of  production  and  distribution  of  wealth 
have  been  duly  socialized,  that  the  organization 
of  work  has  successfully  been  put  into  operation, 
and  that  every  comrade  in  the  newly  established 
Commonwealth  is  fully  satisfied  with  the  part 
assigned  him  to  play  in  it.  So  far,  well ;  but 
here  comes  in  another  big  and  difficult  problem, 
the  question  of  remuneration.     Would  it  be  pos- 


326  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

sible  so  to  draw  up  a  sliding  scale  of  prices  for 
services  that  every  comrade  would  be  contented 
with  what  fell  to  his  lot  ?  I  have  a  shrewd  sus- 
picion that  human  nature,  being  as  it  is  at  present 
found  among  the  socialist  body,  it  would  be  no 
easy  task  to  draft  a  scheme,  or  draw  out  a  schedule, 
that  would  be  approved  and  indorsed  by  the 
workers.  Under  a  socialist  regime  no  one  would 
think  that  he  had  enough  if  somebody  else  had 
more.  Why  should  he?  On  socialist  showing 
one  man  is  as  good  as  another ;  his  only  claim 
to  a  higher  remuneration  than  another  being  his 
greater  usefulness  to  the  community.  On  this 
principle,  the  sewage  of  a  city  being  of  more  vital 
importance  than  its  artistic  proportions,  the  street 
sweeper  would  receive  a  better  "labour  ticket" 
than  the  city  architect.  Perhaps  the  architect 
himself  might  feel  aggrieved,  but  there  would  be 
no  redress.  The  question  of  remuneration  in  a 
socialist  State  has  never  been  fairly  met  and 
solved  for  the  very  simple  reason  that  it  does  not 
admit  of  solution.  You  can  no  more  solve  it 
than  you  can  solve  the  question  of  motive.  There 
is  no  incentive  to  work  but  motive.  Without 
some  adequative  motive,  human  or  divine,  to 
impel  a  man  to  work,  you  will  not  get  anything 
worth  having  out  of  him.     He  will  be  without 


SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  PROMISES  327 

heart,  without  pride  in  the  work  set  him,  because 
while  you  may  have  given  him  a  task  to  fulfil, 
you  have  robbed  him  of  the  motive  power  with 
which  to  accomplish  it.  Man  not  being  an  auto- 
matic machine,  but  a  human  being,  to  get  top 
speed  and  good  service  out  of  him  you  must  do 
more  than  crank  up  and  provide  gasolene;  you 
must  supply  motive.  Man's  character  needs 
grading  up  to  lofty  and  holy  principles  if  he  is  to 
accomphsh  great  things  for  creed  and  country. 
Indeed,  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  in  the 
measure  in  which  a  man  is  actuated  by  motives 
noble,  lofty,  and  chivalrous  will  his  life  become 
a  worthy  inspiration  to  others. 

We  are  assured  by  modern  Socialists  that  the 
manufacturer,  banker,  and  tradesman  may  be 
stimulated  by  the  hope  of  financial  success  in 
business,  but  not  so  the  scientist.  All  that  he 
cares  for  is  ''the  recognition  accorded  to  him 
by  the  learned  fraternity."  Give  him  academic 
distinctions  and  he  will  be  happy.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  artist,  Messrs.  Hillquit,  Spargo,  and  other 
leading  fights  of  the  Socialist  party  tell  us,  seeks 
neither  the  reward  of  money  nor  of  academic  titles. 
He  sets  no  value  on  anything  but  "public  ap- 
plause and  glory."  So,  too,  the  statesman  and  the 
soldier.     Both  of  these  pubhc  servants  are  actu- 


328  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

ated  by  a  longing  for  ''authority  and  influence." 
Money,  honours,  and  glory  to  them  are  of  no 
value  whatever. 

What  a  pitiful  ignorance  of  human  nature 
does  not  all  this  balderdash  betray !  Do  artists, 
then,  give  their  paintings  away  for  a  mere  song, 
or  knock  them  down  to  the  highest  bidder  at  an 
auction  sale?  Perhaps  there  is  no  class  of  men 
with  a  more  passionate  love  of  beautiful  and 
rare  things  than  the  artistic  class.  The  man  with 
an  artistic  temperament  needs  money  to  purchase 
these  treasures.  He  wants  examples.  He  needs 
models.  He  must  study  the  masterpieces  in 
gallery,  cathedral,  and  museum.  To  confine 
the  artist  to  a  socialist  State  would  be  like  yok- 
ing a  thoroughbred  to  a  plough,  like  chaining  a 
husky  to  a  kennel,  hke   confining  an  eagle  to  a 

cage. 

Sociahsts  when  pleading  for  their  Common- 
wealth must  not  forget  that  men  are  not  to  be 
driven,  and  that  they  are  not  to  be  converted  by 
acts  of  a  sociahst  State,  nor  sanctified  by  processes 

of  logic. 

Under  a  sociahst  State  the  special  pleading 
Sociahst  thinks  that  there  would  be  no  difficulty 
in  engaging  your  hewer  of  wood,  drawer  of  water, 
your  drain-worker,  and  your  scullery  maid.     They 


SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  PROMISES  329 

are  difficult  enough  to  get  now,  and  you  may  be 
sure  that  under  a  sociaHst  State  they  would  not  be 
get-at-able  at  all.  For  then  the  guarantee  would 
have  to  be  :  "The  maximum  of  freedom  and  of 
pay  with  the  minimum  of  work  and  restraint ! " 


X 

SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION 

Socialists  have  laid  us  under  a  deep  indebted- 
ness in  two  ways.  In  the  first  place,  they  have  set 
us  a  splendid  example  not  only  of  energy  and  of 
enterprise  in  working  for  a  cause,  but  they  have 
also  shown  us  a  spirit  of  generosity,  not  to  say  of 
self-sacrifice,  by  the  way  they  go  to  work  in  their 
attempt  to  establish  a  Commonwealth  with  a 
very  problematical  future  and  a  very  uncertain 
destiny.  In  the  second  place  they  have  done  a 
great  and  valuable  work  in  calling  our  attention 
to  the  social  evils  of  the  day.  In  fact,  reading 
the  history  of  Socialism  is  almost  like  reading  the 
history  of  the  quest  ^r  the  philosopher's  stone 
which  was  to  transmute  all  metals  into  gold.  The 
object  sought  for  in  both  cases  is  unattainable. 
You  can  no  more  revolutionize  human  nature 
than  you  can  turn  iron  into  gold.  Yet  the  search 
in  both  cases  has  resulted  in  a  number  of  by-prod- 
ucts not  without  their  use.    Alchemy  gave  an 

330 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION    331 

impetus  to  modern  chemistry,  and  has  not  So- 
ciaUsm  given  incentive  to  social  science,  to  which 
many  SociaHsts  have  contributed  valuable  ser- 
vice? 

Indeed,  if  all  socialist  literature  had  reached 
the  level,  say,  of  such  books  as  "Industrial  Democ- 
racy," we  could  regard  Socialism  with  different 
eyes  from  which  actually  we  do.  Alas,  a  glance  at 
my  book  shelves  reminds  me  that  the  gospel  of 
Socialism  has,  in  the  main,  been  a  gospel  of  hatred, 
of  fanaticism,  and  of  class  division. 

Yet,  once  again,  let  me  say  it.  Socialists  have 
done  good  service  in  revealing  our  social  wrongs 
and  injustices,  in  denouncing  our  avarice  and 
cruelty,  and  in  showing  up  our  crass  stupidity 
and  smug  pharisaism.  True,  they  are  not  alone 
in  their  denunciation ;  I  might  cite  a  long  list  of 
earnest  men  of  all  shades  of  religious  and  politi- 
cal creeds  who  have  done  the  same. 

Righteous  indignation  at  injustice,  and  strenu- 
ous endeavour  to  right  it,  spring  spontaneous  from 
human  nature  wherever  it  is  found  unspoiled, 
and  I  am  one  who  firmly  believes  that  the  spirit 
to  make  what  is  all  wrong  all  right  is  a  spirit  that 
is  growing  all  the  time. 

It  is  with  deep  reluctance  that  on  such  a  day 
as  this,  which  the  Lord  hath  made,  that  I  pass 


332  SOCIALISM    AND  CHRISTIANITY 

into  questions  of  controversy.^  With  still  greater 
reluctance  do  I  utter  a  word  of  condemnation  of 
a  party  made  up  of  men  and  women  who,  let  us 
try  to  believe,  are  struggling  for  a  larger  measure 
of  justice  to  their  fellows.  But  after  paying  my 
debt  of  praise  to  Socialists  for  having  arrested  and 
fixed  the  attention  of  lawmakers,  capitalists,  phi- 
lanthropists, and  others  on  the  many  social  sores 
and  industrial  burdens  weighing  down  and  hurt- 
ing the  workingman,  I  must  part  company  with 
them;   I  cannot  call  them  ''comrades." 

As  a  man  and  a  Christian  I  am  compelled  to 
condemn  Socialism  first,  because,  whether  I  con- 
sider it  from  the  standpoint  of  history  or  from 
the  outlook  of  Christian  ethics,  I  find  it  to  be 
bound  up  with  principles  and  postulates  and  con- 
sequences which  by  no  legitimate  mental  process 
can  be  made  to  fit  in  with  the  laws  of  justice, 
equity,  and  right  as  promulgated  by  the  Christian 
Dispensation. 

Secondly,  as  a  man  and  a  Christian  I  condemn 
Socialism  because,  even  if  it  were  an  economic 
theory  only,  which  it  is  not,  it  would  still  be 

1  This  Conference  was  delivered  on  Easter  Sunday,  before 
7000  persons,  who  were  packed  to  the  limits  of  standing  room. 
It  was  estimated  by  the  press  that  as  many  were  turned  away 
an  hour  before  service. 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION    333 

fraught,  as  I  have  pointed  out  in  my  previous 
Conferences,  with  consequences  pernicious  and 
even  disastrous  to  the  individual  and  to  the  fam- 
ily, to  religion  and  to  the  State. 

Thirdly,  I  condemn  Socialism  because  it  takes 
for  granted  what  is  not  true,  that  all  the  social 
and  industrial  evils  of  our  day  are  wrongs  in- 
herent in  the  system  of  private  capital. 

It  will  not  do  vividly  to  portray  the  troubles 
and  the  wrongs  of  the  wage-earning  classes  — 
their  cold  and  hunger,  their  poverty  or  penury, 
their  want  of  wage  and  of  work,  their  wretched- 
ifess  and  misery,  and,  then,  with  a  lightning  jump 
of  logic,  to  exclaim:  ''This  is  all  due  to  and  is 
a  necessary  consequence  of  the  private  ownership 
of  the  means  of  production."  We  must  proceed 
calmly  and  surely  in  judgment,  and  before  pass- 
ing a  verdict  on  a  case  involving  such  tremen- 
dous issues,  as  does  the  one  before  us,  we  must 
first  of  all  give  a  patient  hearing  to  both  sides 
of  the  case,  bearing  in  mind  that,  while  on  the 
one  hand  Socialists  saddle  upon  capital  the  entire 
responsibility  and  burden  of  all  our  present-day 
social  wrongs,  there  are  on  the  other  hand  thou- 
sands of  their  fellow-citizens,  men  upright  of  pur- 
pose, sound  in  judgment,  students  of  history, 
well  read  in  sociology;   ripe  scholars  and  earnest 


334  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

Christians  solicitous,  nay,  most  anxious,  to  safe- 
guard the  rights  of  all  their  fellow-countrymen, 
who  declare  that  the  social  evils,  of  which  both 
parties  alike  complain,  are  not  due  to  nor  essen- 
tially inherent  in  private  ownership,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  are  due  almost  entirely  to  certain  eco- 
nomic and  industrial  abuses  that  have  been  im- 
ported into  the  system.  Nay,  I  will  go  further  and 
will  say  with  Leo  XIII,  and  the  Supreme  Pontiff 
now  sitting  on  the  Throne  of  the  Fisherman,  that 
if  only  the  principles  of  Christian  justice  and  Chris- 
tian charity  as  taught  in  the  Christianity  of  Christ 
had  been  observed  and  enforced  in  the  relations 
between  capital  and  labor,  the  said  abuses  never 
could  have  arisen,  never  could  have  crept  into 
the  system  hitherto  obtaining.  Be  sure  of  this, 
that  our  present-day  struggles,  our  present-day 
evils,  and  our  present-day  situation  of  unrest 
and  of  rivalry,  of  class  hatred,  and  of  fight  for 
bigger  dividends  and  higher  wages,  are  in  no  small 
measure  the  outcome  of  apostacy  from  God,  and 
revolt  against  Christ  and  His  Christianity. 

If  this  world  is  our  be-all  and  our  end-all,  then, 
let  the  cure-all  for  the  present  chaotic  condition 
to  which,  through  our  own  folly,  we  have  brought 
ourselves,  be  revolution,  with  a  policy  of  universal 
grab.    The  alternative  before  us  is  what  I  have 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     335 

stated  once  and  again  in  the  course  of  these 
Conferences,  either  on  to  Sociahsm  or  back  to 
Christ. 

It  is  possible  that  some  of  my  hearers  may  still 
retain  something  of  complacency  and  satisfaction 
with  a  condition  of  things  which  has  provoked  the 
denunciations  of  many  true  social  reformers.  For 
I  fear  that  the  social  sense  of  many  of  us  is  still  in 
a  very  rudimentary  condition.  Some  I  fear  have 
hardened  their  hearts  by  self-indulgence  and  luxury. 
Others  are  merely  stupid  and  lacking  in  imagina- 
tion. They  do  not  know  what  the  hungry  and 
homeless  feel  like,  therefore  hunger  and  homeless- 
ness  do  not  exist.  Their  complacency  is  increased 
by  a  certain  type  of  anti-socialist  literature,  which 
to  my  mind  is  as  harmful  as  the  literature  which 
it  seeks  to  combat.  If  anything  could  make  me 
a  Socialist  it  would  be  the  anti-socialist  literature 
which  is  controlled  by  men  who  are  growing  rich 
on  unjust  profits,  and  is  devoted  to  misrepresent- 
ing the  condition  of  the  working  classes  and  dis- 
torting or  entirely  ignoring  their  grievances. 
Such  literature  is  wholly  opposed  to  the  spirit  of 
Christianity.  It  is  an  attempt  to  stifle  the  voice 
of  the  oppressed,  which  cries  to  Heaven  for 
vengeance. 

Some  of  our  social  evils  spring  from  dcliber- 


336  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

ate  injustice.  Others  spring  from  stupidity.  To- 
gether they  amount  to  an  appalHng  sum  of 
misery  which  must  be  faced  honestly  and  reme- 
died promptly.  Lest  any  of  my  readers  should 
think  I  am  exaggerating,  let  me  recall  a  few  facts 
about  social  conditions  in  my  own  country.  I 
leave  it  to  you  to  say  if  things  are  better  here 
in  your  own  land.  I  take  from  the  English  Catho- 
lic Social  Year  Book  for  1910 :  — 

1.  The  Housing  of  the  Poor  is  a  national  dis- 
grace. This  evil  is  largely  responsible  for  much 
of  our  physical  and  moral  degradation.  Seven 
hundred  thousand  dwellings  in  England  are  said 
to  be  insanitary  or  overcrowded.  Two  and  a  half 
millions  of  people  are  declared  to  be  living  in  over- 
crowded tenements.  "Millions  of  human  beings 
are  housed  worse  than  the  cattle  or  horses  of  many 
a  lord  or  squire.  .  .  .  What  delicacy,  modesty,  or 
self-respect  can  be  expected  of  men  and  women 
whose  bodies  are  so  shamefully  packed  together  ?" 

2.  One  out  of  every  four  persons  in  London 
dies  in  a  workhouse,  asylum,  or  hospital,  and  over 
30  per  cent  of  the  population  of  London  live  on 
or  below  the  poverty  line.  Unemployment  in 
threatening  proportions  is  ever  with  us. 

3.  Infant  mortality  due  to  criminal  carelessness 
or   curable   ignorance   is   deplorably   high.    The 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     337 

figures  are  sufficiently  startling,  but  they  by  no 
means  represent  the  reality.  Sir  John  Gorst 
writes :  — 

''I  am  assured  by  doctors  who  are  in  actual 
practice  in  our  cities  that  such  figures  give  no 
idea  of  the  infant  mortality  among  the  poor,  and 
that  they  know  of  streets  where  more  than  half 
the  children  born  alive  perish  under  a  year  old." 

4.  Of  intemperance  in  England,  Cardinal  Man- 
ning wrote :  — 

"It  is  no  rhetoric  nor  exaggeration  nor  fanati- 
cism to  affirm  that  intemperance  in  intoxicating 
drink  is  a  vice  that  stands  head  and  shoulders 
above  all  the  vices  by  which  we  are  afflicted ;  and 
that  ...  we  are  preeminent  in  this  scandal 
and  shame;  and  that  intemperance  in  intoxicat- 
ing drink  may,  in  sad  and  sober  truth,  be  called 
our  national  vice." 

5.  Wages  are  frequently  far  below  that  mini- 
mum upon  which  the  CathoHc  Church  insists  as 
necessary  for  decent  living. 

In  spite  of  recent  improvements,  sweating  still 
persists  to  an  appalling  extent  in  the  old  coun- 
tries, not  only  in  the  case  of  home  workers,  but 
also  in  many  factories  and  workshops.  With  the 
sweating  evil  goes  child  labor,  and  a  Medical  Su- 
perintendent Officer  of  Health  tells  us  that:  — 


338  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

"In  the  poorest  and  most  unhealthy  of  our 
dwellings  this  variety  of  home  work  is  carried  on 
to  an  inconceivable  extent,  and  in  some  streets 
one  could  hardly  enter  a  house  without  seeing 
two,  three,  four  or  more  children,  varying  in  age 
from  six  to  twelve  years,  sitting  round  a  table,  all 
intensely  busy  trying  to  .earn  a  miserable  pittance." 

Let  me  give  an  example  from  an  American 
writer.  He  was  in  a  glass  factory  where  he  noticed 
that  the  ''carrying-in  boys"  had  been  replaced 
by  automatic  machinery.  The  reason  of  this, 
said  the  manager  of  the  factory,  was  due  to  the 
fact  they  could  not  get  the  boys  they  needed. 
In  another  factory  boys  were  still  ''carrying-in," 
and  the  reason  of  it  there  was  that  they  could 
not  manage  to  get  on  without  them.  When 
reminded  that  automatic  machinery  could  ac- 
complish what  was  being  done  by  boys,  there 
came  the  ready  reply:  "Why  should  I  tie  up 
two  or  three  thousand  dollars  of  my  capital  to 
install  machinery?  So  long  as  I  can  get  any 
supply  of  lads  I  don't  want  to  bother  about 
machinery." 

Clearly  the  only  way  of  stopping  the  employ- 
ment of  boys,  at  enormous  cost  of  Hfe,  in  unhealthy 
factories,  is  legislation.  We  must  not  wait  till 
Capital  takes  pity  on  Labor. 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     339 

"In  the  United  Kingdom,"  we  are  told  that 
''out  of  a  population  of  43,000,000,  as  many  as 
38,000,000  are  poor.  .  .  .  The  United  Kingdom 
is  seen  to  contain  a  great  multitude  of  poor  people 
veneered  with  a  thin  layer  of  the  comfortable  and 
the  rich.  ...  In  an  average  year  eight  million- 
naires  die,  leaving  between  them  three  times  as 
much  wealth  as  is  left  by  644,000  poor  persons  who 
die  in  one  year.  Again,  in  a  single  average  year, 
the  wealth  left  by  the  few  rich  people  who  die 
approaches  in  amount  the  aggregate  property 
possessed  by  the  whole  of  the  living  poor.  .  .  . 
About  one-seventieth  part  of  the  population  owns 
far  more  than  one-half  of  the  entire  accumulated 
wealth,  public  and  private,  of  the  United  King- 
dom." (Chizza,  "  Money,  Poverty,  and  Riches," 
pp.  43,  52,  72.)  Mr.  Hunter,  referring  to  this  same 
subject,  tells  us  in  his  work  on  "Poverty"  (p.  60) 
that  ten  millions  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  are  sunk  in  poverty,  while  four  milUons 
of  them  are  in  receipt  of  relief. 

In  1854  there  were  not  more  than  twenty-five 
millionnaires  in  New  York  City,  their  total  for- 
tunes aggregating  S43, 000,000.  There  were  not 
more  than  fifty  millionnaires  in  the  whole  of  the 
United  States,  their  aggregate  fortunes  not  ex- 
ceeding  .$80,000,000.     To-day   there   are  several 


340  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

individual  fortunes  of  more  than  $80,000,000 
each.  New  York  City  alone  is  said  to  have  over 
two  thousand  naillionnaires,  and  the  United  States 
more  than  five  thousand.  The  writer  goes  on 
to  observe  that  :  *'  it  is  only  necessary  to  add 
that  all  the  miUionnaires  of  1854,  together  with 
the  half  miUionnaires,  owned  not  more  than  about 
$100,000,000  out  of  the  total  wealth,  which  was 
at  that  time  something  like  $10,000,000,000.  In 
other  words,  they  owned  not  more  than  one  per 
cent  of  the  wealth  of  the  country.  In  1890,  when 
the  wealth  of  the  country  was  slightly  more  than 
$65,000,000,000,  Senator  Ingalls  could  quote  in  the 
United  States  Senate  a  table  showing  that  the 
miUionnaires  and  half  miUionnaires  of  that  time, 
31,100  persons  in  all,  owned  $36,250,000,000,  or 
just  fifty-six  per  cent  of  the  entire  wealth  of  the 
United  States." 

A  modern  writer  reminds  us  that  'Hhe  figures 
furnished  by  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor 
indicate  that  the  wage  in  American  cities  is 
not  sufficient  to  enable  a  man  with  a  wife  and 
family  of  three  children  under  fourteen  years  of 
age  to  maintain  a  decent  standard  of  living.  In 
the  larger  cities  S3  a  day,  and  in  the  smaller,  less 
expensive  cities  $2.50,  are  the  least  wages  upon 
which  a  standard  of  decency  can  be  maintained." 


SOCL\LISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     341 

"  Corroborative  e\idence  of  these  statements 
may  readily  be  secured  in  any  locality  by  personal 
observation  which  will  convince  even  the  most 
sceptical  that  the  standard  of  American  wages 
for  semiskilled  and  unskilled  labor  is  considerably 
below  S2  a  day." 

The  immigrants  accept  the  low  wages  and  live 
on  low  standards  without  realizing  the  results  of 
their  action.  They  think  in  terms  of  Europe  and 
accept  employment  at  a  wage  far  below  that 
necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  family  efficiency, 
or  even  of  family  life  in  the  United  States.  They 
are  unacquainted  with  prices  and  the  cost  of 
living,  and  their  judgment  is  therefore  dependent 
not  upon  knowledge  of  American  conditions,  but 
upon  that  of  foreign  conditions.  ''The  new- 
comers know  nothing  of  a  standard  wage,  and  when 
work  is  scarce,  they  will  offer  to  work  for  less  than 
is  paid  common  labor.  Such  was  the  case  of  a 
band  of  Croatians  who  offered  their  services  to  a 
firm  in  Pittsburg  for  SI. 20  a  day.  When  the 
superintendent  heard  it,  he  said,  'My  God,  what 
is  the  country  coming  to  !  How  can  a  man  hve 
in  Pittsburg  on  SI. 20  a  day?'  The  foreman 
replied,  'Give  them  rye  bread,  a  herring,  and 
beer,  and  they  are  all  right.'" 

The  immigrants  thus  establish  a  "single  man" 


342  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

foreign  standard  for  American  wages,  and  fore- 
men and  superintendents,  by  using  the  foreigners, 
succeed  in  reducing  the  wages  of  the  American 
workmen.  "Shrewd  superintendents  are  known, 
not  only  to  take  advantage  of  the  influx  of  un- 
skilled labor  to  keep  down  day  wages,  but  to  re- 
duce the  pay  of  skilled  men  by  a  gradually  enforced 
system  of  promoting  the  Slavs."  ^  I  am  told  that 
95.4  per  cent  of  the  tailors  on  the  Island  of  Man- 
hattan, N.Y.,  are  or  were  foreigners,  and  in  Chicago, 
81.8  per  cent  are  so. 

"  The  silk  mills  in  some  parts  of  the  anthracite 
region  of  Pennsylvania  work  night  and  day.  It 
is  much  cheaper.  As  a  manufacturer  said,  'You 
get  your  money  for  3  per  cent.'  Across  the 
street  from  one  of  these  mills  stands  a  wooden 
miner's  shanty.  One  night  an  old  man  and  a 
Httle  boy  walked  out  on  the  porch  of  this  home, 
and  the  old  man  leaned  down  and  kissed  the  boy's 
forehead.  'Good  night,  father,'  said  the  boy, 
and  taking  his  dinner  pail  from  where  it  stood 
on  the  porch,  he  walked  slowly  across  the  street, 
and  into  the  Hghted  mill  for  the  night  shift. 
Twelve  hours  later  he  stumbled  sleepily  across 
the  same  street,  into  the  miner's  shanty,  and  went 

1 "  The  New  Pittsburgers,"  Peter  Roberts,  Charities  and  the 
Commons,  Jan.  2,  1909,  Vol.  21,  p.  538. 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     343 

to  bed.  He  had  done  his  'turn'  on  the  night 
shift,  away  from  home,  all  night  long  in  the  mill, 
with  some  rough  women  and  some  rougher  men ; 
then  during  the  day  he  must  sleep  while  he  can, 
preparatory  to  another  twelve  hours  in  the  mill. 
Children  who  work  'night  shift'  do  not  partici- 
pate in  the  duties  and  pleasures  of  home  life. 
Child  labour  eliminates  the  child  labourer  from  the 
life  of  the  home,  and  therefore  becomes  a  prob- 
lem of  the  family  as  well  as  a  problem  of  the  child." 

With  instances  such  as  these  before  us  we  may 
readily  understand  how  the  toiling  classes  snatch, 
like  the  drowning  man,  at  any  plank  thrown  out 
to  them  by  the  paid  agitator;  live  they  can- 
not without  a  living  wage.  At  best  there  is 
before  the  toiler  but  a  short  existence.  Mr. 
Scott  Nealing  assures  us  that:  ''The  length  of 
life  is  determined,  not  by  any  inherent  incapacity 
in  man  to  live,  but  by  the  maladjustment  sur- 
rounding the  living  and  working  conditions. 

"  There  is  also  a  considerable  variation  of  the 
length  of  life  within  the  same  country.^  Men 
born  in  American  cities  of  native  white  parents 
live  on  the  average  only  31  years;  those  born  of 
foreign  white  parents  live  29.1  years ;  while  those 

' "  Modern  Social  Conditions,'!  W.  B.  Bailey,  New  York, 
The  Century  Co.,  1906,  p.  227. 


344  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

born  of  colored  parents  live  only  26.3  years. 
These  figures  will  prove  a  rude  shock  to  the  con- 
tented citizens  who  were  congratulating  them- 
selves upon  the  supposition  that  men  lived  three- 
score and  ten  years  or  thereabouts.  Men  do  not 
live  even  half  of  threescore  and  ten  years  in  the 
modern  American  city,  but  die,  on  the  average, 
when  they  reach  the  age  of  one  score  and  ten. 

"  Variation  in  the  length  of  life  thus  occurs  with 
locality,  race,  and  sex,  but  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  present  study  no  variation  is  of  such  pro- 
found significance  as  the  variation  between  occu- 
pations. 

"  Many  men  die  because  of  the  occupation  in 
which  they  are  engaged.  There  is  a  very  direct 
connection  between  mortality  and  occupation."  ^ 

Consider  for  a  moment  the  lives  of  those  who  in 
England  card  hooks  and  eyes  for  one  penny  a  gross, 
who  make  our  match-boxes  (288  drawers,  288 
covers,  288  bits  of  sandpaper)  for  twopence  half 
penny  per  gross,  who  birl  and  kink  fringes  on  shawls 
for  less  than  a  penny  per  hour,  who  convert  sugar 
bags  into  bran  sacks  for  one  penny  per  dozen,  who 
make  artificial  flowers  for  threepence  or  fourpence 
the  gross.  Excluding  domestic  servants,  there  are 
in  England  3^  million  wage-earning  women,  and 

^  Social  Adjustment. 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION    345 

thousands  of  them  receiving  less  than  7  shiUings 
a  week.  Onlj^  to  think  of  it  —  in  London,  where 
there  is  no  room  but  in  its  churches,  one  fifth  of 
the  population  underfed  and  overcrowded  ! 

The  hst  might  be  prolonged,  but  enough  has, 
perhaps,  been  said  to  prove  the  indictment  against 
us. 

Clearly,  therefore,  as  Pope  Leo  told  us,  "a 
remedy  must  be  found  and  found  speedily"  for 
such  a  condition  of  affairs.  What  is  the  remedy 
to  be?  I  repeat,  not  Socialism.  For  Socialism, 
as  I  have  endeavoured  to  show,  would  cripple  the 
forces  which  are  indispensable  for  social  welfare. 

Not  legislation  alone.  Legislation  can  but  in- 
directly touch  the  deeper  springs  of  national  well- 
being.  How  can  it  foster  kindly  relations  be- 
tween employer  and  employed,  or  strengthen 
conjugal  fidelity,  or  kindle  patriotism  or  inculcate 
generosity,  manliness,  thrift?  It  may  help  to 
remove  obstacles  to  the  development  of  these 
qualities,  but  it  can  scarcely  do  more. 

Moreover,  legislation,  unless  supported  by  pub- 
lic opinion,  is  almost  useless.  You  may  pass 
your  laws,  but  they  will  be  evaded  unless  a 
healthy  social  conscience  among  the  people  in- 
sures their  application.  How  much  social  legis- 
lation in  the  past  has  become  a  dead  letter  ow- 


346  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

ing  to  the  fact  that  the  public,  which  may  have 
pressed  for  a  measure  of  reform,  is  apt  to  lose 
interest  in  it  as  soon  as  it  is  secured. 

What  we  want  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  is 
a  highly  developed  social  conscience  —  a  trained 
alertness  on  the  part  of  all  citizens  to  use  every 
fraction  of  their  social  influence  in  getting,  first  of 
all,  present  laws  enforced.  We  need  a  consider- 
able development  of  private  initiative  all  over  the 
country.  But  again,  no  form  of  private  initiative 
will  suffice  by  itself  to  solve  the  social  question. 
Private  initiative  cannot  control  the  required 
resources ;  and  in  the  last  resort  it  cannot  exer- 
cise the  needed  compulsion.  A  thousand  men 
unite  in  beneficent  private  enterprise :  ten  men 
stand  out.  Those  ten  may  foil  the  efforts  of  the 
thousand.  The  selfish  individuahsm  of  the  few 
may  actually  make  iniquitous  profit  from  the 
efforts  of  the  many.  "In  the  kingdom  of  private 
social  enterprise  the  rascal  is  king,"  to  adapt  an 
old  proverb.  The  strong  arm  of  the  law  must 
be  brought  in  to  dislodge  him  from  his  fastness. 
As  Pope  Leo  says,  "If  employers  lay  unjust  bur- 
dens upon  their  workmen  or  degrade  them  with 
conditions  repugnant  to  their  dignity  as  human 
beings  it  is  right  to  invoke  the  assistance  and 
authority  of  the  law." 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL   REFORMATION     347 

Nor  can  the  Christianity  of  Christ  alone  solve 
the  social  question.  For  the  social  question  is 
not  merely  a  moral  or  religious  question.  It  is 
an  economic  and  political  question  as  well.  It 
demands  the  positive  action  of  civil  authority. 
This  point  is  insisted  on  by  Leo  XIII.  I  wish  to 
lay  stress  on  it  here  because  I  am  presently  going 
to  insist  upon  the  fact  that  the  social  question 
cannot  be  solved  apart  from  Christian  principles, 
and  that  the  Church  must  have  a  large  share  in  its 
solution.  Some  ardent  Christians  have  jumped 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  the  task  of  the  Church 
to  solve  the  social  question  unaided,  and  that  the 
office  of  the  civil  authority  consists  merely  in 
protecting  mens'  rights.  This  is  not  the  case. 
State  action,  and  private  action,  too,  must  com- 
bine with  Church  action  in  the  solution  of  the 
social  question.  That  is  the  common  view  of 
Catholics  based  on  the  teaching  of  Leo  XIII.  It 
would  seem  to  be  the  only  reasonable  view. 

There  can  be  no  short  cut,  no  simple  remedy, 
no  panacea.  All  possible  forces  must  be  brought 
to  bear  on  the  question ;  and  they  must  be  co- 
ordinated. Legislation  and  private  endeavour  and 
Christian  enterprise  must  unite  and  combine,  each 
supporting  the  other. 

Let  us  take  these  three  instruments  of  social 


348  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

regeneration  one  by  one,  and  see  what  each  is 
actually  doing,  and  how  each  might  be  further 
strengthened.  Finally,  we  may  consider  how 
their  action  may  be  correlated  and  used  to  the 
best  advantage  so  as  to  secure  some  reasonable 
solution  of  this  terrible  and  terrifying  problem. 

1.  Legislation. 

Considerable  progress  has  been  made  in  social 
legislation  during  the  past  century.  With  the 
reaction  against  the  old  laissez  faire  principle 
came  one  measure  after  another  destined  to  se- 
cure for  the  worker  decent  conditions  of  Ufe  and 
labour. 

I  need  not  repeat  the  story  of  the  passing  of 
Factory  laws  in  Europe  and  America.  Sanitation 
and  safety  have  to  a  large  measure  been  secured 
to  our  workers;  children  have  been  rescued  in 
many  places  from  the  worst  horrors  of  factory 
slavery ;  the  hours  of  labour  have  been  regulated 
at  least  to  some  extent.  Contrast  the  conditions 
of  labour  now  with  those  in  the  early  part  of  the 
nineteenth  century  and  it  will  be  seen  that  enor- 
mous progress  has  been  made. 

Glance  for  a  moment  at  the  hst  of  laws  that 
have  been  passed  since  England  woke  up  to  find 
herself  a  Democracy  !  The  Workmens'  Compen- 
sation Act,  an  Old  Age  Pension  Act,  The  Trades 


SOCL\LISM  AND  SOCL\L  REFORMATION     349 

Disputes  Act.  I  might  lengthen  out  this  catalogue 
of  laws  for  the  betterment  of  our  people,  but  I 
will  content  myself  with  the  mention  of  a  few 
more  measures  which  go  to  show  how  rapidly  the 
Old  Country  has  rattled  along  the  road  called 
Social  Reform  during  the  past  decade.  There 
is  the  Small  Holdings  Act,  The  House  and  Town- 
planning  Act.  Then  there  is  The  Childrens' 
Charter,  and  The  Insurance  Scheme,  and  a  score 
of  other  measures,  which  time  will  reveal,  for  the 
uplifting,  the  betterment,  and  the  comfort  and 
happiness  of  the  toilers  in  this  great  Workshop 
called  the  world. 

From  England  the  principle  of  factory  legis- 
lation spread  to  the  United  States,  Germany, 
France,  and  Switzerland,  and  finally  it  established 
itself  in  all  industrial  countries. 

"Looking  broadly  now  to  labour  legislation  as  it 
has  occurred  in  this  country,"  says  Mr.  Carroll 
D.  Wright,  speaking  of  factory  laws  in  the  United 
States,  "it  may  be  well  to  sum  up  its  general 
features.  Such  legislation  has  fixed  the  hours  of 
labour  for  women  and  certain  minors  in  manu- 
facturing establishments ;  it  has  adjusted  the 
contracts  of  labour ;  it  has  protected  employees 
by  insisting  that  all  dangerous  machinery  shall 
be  guarded ;  ...  it  has  created  boards  of  fac- 


350  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

tory  inspectors,  whose  powers  and  duties  have 
added  much  to  the  health  and  safety  of  the  opera- 
tives ;  it  has  in  many  instances  provided  for  weekly 
payments,  not  only  by  municipalities,  but  by 
corporations;  ...  it  has  regulated  the  employ- 
ment of  prisoners ;  protected  the  employment  of 
children;  exempted  the  wages  of  the  wife  and 
minor  children  from  attachment;  established 
bureaus  for  statistics  of  labour ;  provided  for  the 
ventilation  of  factories  and  workshops;  estab- 
lished industrial  schools  and  evening  schools ; 
provided  special  transportation  by  railroads  for 
workingmen ;  modified  the  common-law  rules 
relative  to  the  liability  of  employers  for  injuries 
of  their  employees ;  fixed  the  compensation  of 
railroad  corporations  for  negligently  causing  the 
death  of  employees,  and  has  provided  for  their 
protection  against  accident  and  death." 

After  all  this  progress,  however,  we  are  still 
only  in  the  beginning  of  our  democratic  campaign 
of  life-saving.  To  conserve  life  and  health,  so- 
ciety must  enormously  increase  its  efforts  along 
present  lines  and  must  open  up  new  routes  of 
progress. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  question  demanding  closer 
or  more  immediate  study  than  the  question  of 
wages.     And  on  this  point  I  must  say  a  word. 


SOCIALISM   AND   SOCIAL  REFORMATION     351 

The  ''just  wage"  is  a  matter  upon  which  the 
CathoUc  Church  holds  very  strong  views.  She 
detests  the  old  political  economy  which  concen- 
trated its  attention  merely  on  production.  She 
looks  to  the  producer.  The  workman  has  a  right 
to  a  living  wage,  and  legislation  should  enforce 
that  right. 

In  England  the  demand  by  miners  for  a  living 
minimum  wage  commands  our  sympathy,  because 
the  wage  in  many  instances  is  low,  taking  into 
consideration  the  hardness  of  the  work  and  its 
risks  to  life  and  limb.  Besides,  we  must  not 
forget  that  the  profits  from  some  of  the  British 
mines  have  been  quite  enormous.  But  it  is  a 
little  difficult  to  see  the  justice  of  a  demand  for 
a  minimum  wage  which  every  worker  should 
receive,  altogether  irrespective  of  his  efficiency 
and  of  the  amount  of  work  that  he  does.  In 
one  of  the  New  York  dailies  I  found  the  matter 
well  put.  Speaking  on  this  question  the  writer 
says: — 

"If  that  should  be  granted  in  the  mines  the 
same  demand  might  be  extended  into  other  in- 
dustries and  occupations,  in  some  of  which,  indeed, 
conditions  call  for  it  at  least  as  much  as  in  the 
collieries.  There  would  be  established  the  prin- 
ciple for  which  many  Socialists  have  contended, 


352  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

that  every  man,  whether  competent  or  incompe- 
tent, whether  industrious  or  lazy,  shall  receive 
from  somebody  a  sum  sufficient  for  his  needs." 
Now,  it  is  true  that  every  man  ought  to  get  a 
hving  income,  but  it  is  equally  true  that  every 
able-bodied  man  ought  to  earn  his  wages. 

''It  is  true  also  that  with  the  minimum  wage 
established  there  would  be  a  possibiUty  of  pajdng 
higher  wages  to  the  more  efficient  men,  though 
more  than  one  big  strike  has  arisen  from  the  ob- 
jection of  labour  unions  to  that  very  thing.  The 
point  is,  however,  that  there  would  be  nothing  to 
prevent  a  lazy  workman  from  'soldiering'  and 
producing  only  a  fraction  of  what  he  could  and 
should  produce,  feeling  secure  in  the  receipt  of 
the  minimum  wage  and  in  the  assurance  that  his 
union  on  pain  of  striking  would  not  permit  his 
employer  to  dismiss  him  for  inefficiency.  The 
minimum  wage  would  be  all  right  if  it  were  earned 
and  if  there  were  an  assurance  that  it  would  be 
earned,  or  at  least  that  workmen  would  faithfully 
do  their  work.  To  say  that  every  man  shall  re- 
ceive at  least  so  much  and  that  there  shall  be  no 
dismissals  for  incompetency  would  be  to  offer  a 
temptation  to  idleness. 

"  The  Westminster  Gazette,  which  strongly  sup- 
ports the  present  government  and  which  takes 


SOCLILISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     353 

the  radical  side  in  such  disputes  as  this,  puts  the 
matter  well  when  it  says  that  'the  right  plan  is 
to  give  the  men  collectively  an  incentive  to  keep 
up  the  output  and  to  deal  themselves  with  the 
lazy  or  inefficient  worker  whose  maUngering 
would  reduce  it.'  That  is  indisputable;  but 
the  question  is  how  the  men  are  to  be  induced, 
under  the  minimum  wage  system,  to  establish 
and  maintain  such  a  standard.  And  that  is  a 
problem  which  may  confront  America  as  well  as 
England." 

It  is  not  my  business  to  draw  up  a  scheme  of 
social  legislation.  I  merely  wish  to  point  out 
that  much  remains  to  be  studied.  Let  me  fur- 
ther insist  on  the  need  of  rescuing  such  legislation 
from  its  subordination  to  mere  party  interests. 
Valuable  as  the  party  system  may  be,  it  should 
not  be  allowed  to  prejudice  the  progress  of  bene- 
ficial legislation.  We  need  a  great  diffusion  of 
social  conscience  in  the  community  which  will 
elevate  the  vital  interests  of  the  nation  above  the 
strife  of  parties,  and  secure  a  consistent  and  well- 
calculated  system  of  social  laws. 

Here,    in    the    United    States,    what    splendid 

work  might  be  done  if  only  measures  of  industrial 

and  social  reform  could  be  lifted  above  the  plane 

of  party  politics  !     What  an  object  lesson  America 

2a 


354  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

might  be  to  the  whole  commercial  world  if  only 
she  would  refuse  to  subordinate  questions  con- 
cerning the  general  welfare  of  the  public  to  po- 
litical strife. 

But  no  one  can  look  into  the  political  arena 
to-day  without  feeling  that  men  of  all  political 
creeds  are  getting  closer  together  in  these  big 
questions  dealing  with  the  industrial  life  of  the 
country ;  and  I  for  one  believe  that  the  United 
States  has  it  in  her  power  to  remedy  this  social 
and  industrial  trouble.  She  has  the  key  to  the 
secret  lock,  let  her  turn  it  in  the  wards,  and  bring 
forth  her  magic  cure  for  the  grievances  and 
complaints  from  which  the  social  organism  is  so 
severely  suffering. 

2.  Private  Initiative. 

This  brings  me  to  the  second  factor  in  social 
progress;  namely,  private  initiative. 

Private  initiative  has  effected  much,  and  is 
capable  of  effecting  considerably  more.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  estimate  the  value  of  such  activities 
as  the  Trades-unions,  Cooperative  Societies, 
National  Temperance  Leagues,  National  Asso- 
ciations for  the  Prevention  of  Consumption, 
Labour  Unions,  and  other  kindred  organizations. 
Then,  enumerate,  if  you  can,  all  the  Philanthropic 
and  Charitable  Institutions,  such  as  Settlements, 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     355 

Clubs,  Homes,  which  are  scattered  throughout 
the  old  countries,  notably  in  England. 

If  the  rich  are  rich  for  the  sake  of  the  poor,  and 
the  poor  poor  for  the  sake  of  the  rich,  then,  here 
in  these  multitudinous  Settlements  dotted  up  and 
down  the  slumdoms  of  our  mammoth  London 
metropolis,  you  will  see  how  many  of  the  well-to-do 
make  use  of  the  good  things  of  this  world  by  shar- 
ing them  with  their  needy  brothers  and  sisters. 

But  besides  these  charitable  institutions  to 
which  I  refer,  let  me  point  out  the  service  being 
done  to  the  toiling  classes  by  cooperative  busi- 
ness concerns,  by  cooperation  in  the  distribution 
as  well  as  in  the  production  of  economic  goods. 
Then  there  is  the  profit-sharing  business  by  which 
the  employee  receives  a  share  of  any  profit  made 
by  the  employer  beyond  bare  interest  on  capital. 

These  profit-sharing  and  labour  copartnership 
systems  have  on  the  whole  worked  well  in  England. 
Livesey,  of  Liverpool ;  Hartley,  of  Aintree ;  Clarke- 
Nicholls  and  Combs  of  London ;  J.  T.  Taylor,  of 
Batley,  not  to  mention  other  firms,  and  numerous 
British  Gas  Companies,  give  their  men  an  interest 
in  their  businesses.  Profit-sharing  and  copart- 
nership introduce  the  much-needed  human  element 
into  business ;  they  bring  employer  and  employee 
into  closer  relationship,  and  they  make  Capital 


356  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

and  Labour  interested  in  the  financial  success  of 
the  same  commercial  enterprise. 

This  method  of  doing  business  has  given  a  set- 
back in  many  districts  to  Socialism,  and  has  made 
men  take  pride  in  their  firms,  and  put  heart  into 
their  work. 

The  plan  of  profit-sharing  that  is  most  generally 
adopted  not  only  in  England,  but  in  the  United 
States  also,  is  the  "cash  bonus."  ''The  portion  of 
the  profits  to  be  divided,"  to  put  the  case  roughly, 
''is  paid  to  the  employees  in  proportion  to  their 
wages,  or  salaries,  and  the  number  of  hours'  work 
for  the  year." 

There  is  another  new  departure  that  has  been 
very  generally  taken  up  by  firms  in  the  United 
States,  and  promises  to  work  wonders  for  a  better 
understanding  between  employer  and  employee  — 
I  refer  to  what  is  known  as  "Welfare  Work," 
which  includes  an  ample  provision  of  all  that  is 
needed  to  put  human  conditions  into  business 
life.  It  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  give  even 
a  partial  list  of  business  houses  where  really  splen- 
did opportunities  of  recreation  and  self-improve- 
ments are  offered  to  their  wage-earners.  Through- 
out the  States  I  have  seen,  to  my  ever  growing 
amazement  and  delight,  business  establishment 
after  business  establishment  furnished  with  well- 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     357 

set-up  club-rooms,  libraries,  recreation  centres, 
wash  rooms,  rest  rooms,  dining  halls,  and  what 
not  for  the  convenience,  comfort,  and  uplifting 
of  employees.  Not  satisfied  with  all  this  I  have 
found  in  the  States  a  growing  wish  on  the  part  of 
the  heads  of  great  firms  to  refine  and  beautify 
their  factories,  and  so  to  rob  industrial  life  of  its 
deadly  dull  monotony.  How  humanizing  is  this  ! 
My  observations  here  have  led  me  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  in  the  United  States  the  employer  gets 
closer  to  his  employee  than  his  brother  does  in 
the  old  country.  The  human  element,  of  which 
I  make  so  much,  is  more  in  evidence  in  America 
than  in  England.  Capital  and  labour  are  nearer 
to  shaking  hands,  to  chatting  with  each  other, 
and  to  wishing  each  other  good-luck  and  God- 
speed. 

But  alas !  even  after  a  social  conscience  of 
some  kind  has  been  created,  after  many  legis- 
lative measures  have  been  passed,  and  private 
enterprises  have  been  launched  with  the  object 
of  improving  the  environment  and  of  uplifting 
the  social  and  industrial  conditions  of  the  wage- 
earning  classes,  we  have  mournfully  to  confess 
that  we  seem  to  be  nearly  as  far  off  from  a  solu- 
tion of  the  Industrial  Problem  as  when  we  first 
started  out  with  such  good  will  a  hundred  years 


358  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


ago.  During  the  past  week  I  came  across  a  case 
illustrating  what  I  mean.  A  lad,  ten  years  ago, 
was  given  a  job  out  of  compassion  on  one  of  the 
leading  dailies  in  this  great  country.  He  started 
in  the  mail  room  and  passed  on  thence  to  become 
office  boy,  and  on  again  to  counter  clerk,  and 
from  that  to  subscription-solicitor,  till,  at  the 
close  of  his  tenth  year  of  service,  he  has  become 
advertising  solicitor  with  an  excellent  salary.  He 
is  dissatisfied,  and  wants  to  leave  and  to  better 
himself.  He  imagines  he  has  not  been  treated 
fairly,  that  he  should  already  be  higher  up  the 
newspaper  ladder,  and  be  given  a  higher  wage 
for  his  very  ordinary  services. 

If  we  did  not  personally  come  across  intances 
such  as  this  one  would  be  disposed  to  think 
they  were  inventions  of  a  diseased  brain. 
Let  me  cite  another  example,  showing  how  ut- 
terly impossible  it  is  to  rely  on  environment  to 
create  content  in  a  wrong-headed  man.  I  was 
travelling  on  a  train  and  got  into  conversation 
with  one  of  the  company's  servants.  He  was 
getting  106  dollars  a  month  as  a  brakeman. 
Soon  he  would  be  promoted  from  brakeman  to 
the  post  of  freight  conductor  with  140  dollars 
a  month,  he  had  no  doubt  but  before  very  long 
after  that  he  would  find  himself  nominated  pas- 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCLVL   REFORMATION     359 

senger  conductor  of  a  Pullman  train  with  180 
or  200  dollars  a  month.  When  he  retired  from 
the  service  he  would  find  a  pension  awaiting  him. 
Meanwhile  he  was  treated  with  the  greatest  con- 
sideration by  his  employers.  He  worked  only 
fifteen  days  in  the  month,  and  not  more  than  150 
hours  all  told.  He  took  his  meals  in  the  dining 
car,  could  order  what  he  willed,  and  paid  not  more 
than  a  quarter.  He  looked  the  picture  of  health, 
and  ought  to  have  been  thankful  beyond  measure 
for  his  lot  in  life.  He  was  not  an  educated  man ; 
he  was  just  a  handy,  ready,  unskilled  workman 
to  whom  his  employers  had  been  considerate  and 
kind.  Was  my  friend  contented,  was  he  grate- 
ful? No,  he  would  quit  the  company's  service 
as  soon  as  he  could,  and  declared  there  was  "noth- 
ing doing"  where  he  was. 

When  employers  of  labour  find,  in  return  for 
their  schemes  of  copartnership,  profit-sharing, 
and  the  rest  of  it,  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  their 
men,  with  the  very  first  opportunity,  to  go  on 
strike ;  when  Capital  taking  Labour  by  the  hand 
promotes  it  steadily,  surely,  with  one  result  only, 
that  Labour,  waxing  strong,  revolts  and  kicks,  it  is 
no  wonder  that  employers  should  sometimes  lose 
heart,  or  grow  soured,  feeling  they  are  up  against 
a  proposition  which  not  even  the  very  best  will 


360  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

in  the  world  can  solve  and  straighten  out.  But 
we  must  all  bear  up  and  be  resolved  in  season  and 
out  of  season,  in  good  and  in  evil  repute,  to  do  our 
best  to  make  what  is  wrong  right,  and  to  leave 
as  little  excuse  as  possible  for  any  appeal  for  the 
paid  agitator  whose  mission  it  would  seem  is  to 
create  grievances  which  defy  redress. 

What  we  need,  again  let  me  say  it,  is  the  wide 
diffusion  of  a  social  sense.  We  expend  a  consid- 
erable amount  of  energy  on  electioneering  and 
party  politics,  but  how  many  of  us  will  lift  a 
finger  to  cooperate  in  that  social  reform  which 
should  be  raised  far  above  the  turmoil  of  party  ? 

It  is  not  only  measures  we  want,  but  men  to 
work  them.  Disinclination  to  take  part  in  the 
work  of  social  reform  is  found  to  characterize  the 
majority  of  our  people  from  the  top  rung  to  the 
bottom.  The  workers  are  the  exception,  and 
they  have  to  contend  with  a  mountain  of  apathy 
and  indifference.  The  rich,  with  noble  exceptions, 
are  absorbed  in  pleasure  hunting;  the  middle 
class  are  sunk  in  routine ;  the  toilers  are  engaged 
in  the  grim  fight  for  daily  bread.  Social  respon- 
sibility fails  to  make  itself  felt.  A  general  or 
local  election,  with  its  torrent  of  rhetorical  plati- 
tudes, special  pleading  and  windy  sentiment,  its 
scarcely  concealed  briberies,  its  gross  exaggera- 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCL\L  REFORMATION     361 

tions,  and  its  coloured  news,  will  for  a  few  weeks 
secure  the  public  attention.  But  a  general  elec- 
tion is  not  a  time  when  a  sound  civic  sense  is 
calculated  to  develop.  And  when  it  is  past  we 
revert  to  our  former  ways. 

Social  reform  is  not  a  thing  that  can  be  put 
into  commission  with  a  stroke  of  the  pen.  It 
postulates  a  widespread  social  sense.  It  is  a 
matter  in  which  we  must  all  be  interested,  and 
to  which  we  must  all  in  one  way  or  another  con- 
tribute. 

3.   The  Action  of  the  Church. 

And  now  I  come  to  that  factor  in  social  reform 
which  is  so  often  left  out  of  account,  and  which 
the  Socialist  almost  invariably  ignores  or  depreci- 
ates ;   I  mean  the  influence  of  Christianity. 

And  if  I  speak  more  particularly  of  the  Cath- 
ohc  Church,  let  it  not  be  thought  that  I  under- 
value the  Christian  social  action  of  those  who  are 
outside  its  fold.  I  believe  that  Christianity  exists 
in  its  fullness  and  integrity  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  and  in  it  alone.  But  I  have  nothing 
but  praise  and  admiration  for  the  social  action  of 
those  who,  though  deprived  of  the  fulness  of  Chris- 
tian teaching,  are  yet  embodying  Christianity, 
as  they  know  it,  in  generous  efforts  for  the  amelio- 
ration of  the  people's  miseries.     But  I  must  be 


362  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

allowed  to  speak  of  the  Catholic  Church,  since 
it  is  her  doctrine  more  particularly  that  I  seek  to 
explain  in  these  Conferences,  and  it  is  her  action 
in  this  and  other  lands  with  which  I  am  most 
familiar. 

Catholic  writers  have  ever  insisted  on  the  fact 
that  Christianity  must  be  the  basis  of  true  social 
well-being.  They  do  not  mean  by  this  that  the 
Church  alone  can  effect  such  well-being :  for  in 
the  Catholic  view  the  State  has  positive  functions 
to  discharge  in  ameliorating  the  condition  of  the 
people.  Neither  do  they  mean  that  social  well- 
being  and  temporal  prosperity  are  the  ultimate 
ends  for  which  the  Church  exists.  But  what 
they  do  mean  is  that  the  social  question  cannot  be 
solved  apart  from  the  Church,  since  the  Church, 
in  Newman's  phrase,  supplies  "the  binding  prin- 
ciple of  society." 

The  Catholic  Church  protests  against  current 
Capitalism  with  its  unmoral  or  immoral  econo- 
mies, its  false  boast  of  freedom,  its  undis- 
guised utilitarianism.  She  protests  against  So- 
cialism which,  in  the  ultimate  analysis,  is  equally 
utilitarian.  To  both  she  says  :  ''In  cutting  your- 
selves off  from  me  you  are  cutting  yourselves 
off  from  what  is  most  sound  in  European  tradition. 
You  are  cutting  yourselves  off  from  a  great  spir- 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     363 

itual  force,  without  which  society  can  make  no 
real  progress."  Legislative  machinery  and  eco- 
nomic ordinances  cannot  give  men  ideals,  or  per- 
manently and  effectively  check  their  greed,  or 
teach  the  dignity  and  duty  of  labour,  or  maintain 
that  purity  of  child  life  and  of  family  life  upon 
which  social  well-being  depends.  The  Church 
can  do  all  these  things.  Hence  the  Church  is  a 
necessary  factor  in  social  progress. 

I  am  speaking  of  modern  times.  I  am  not 
speaking  of  ancient  civilizations  or  remote  lands 
where  Christianity  has  not  yet  secured  a  foothold. 
The  people  of  Europe  and  America,  like  Constan- 
tine,  have  seen  the  cross  in  the  sky,  and  can  never 
be  as  though  they  had  seen  it  not.  Pre-Christian 
civilizations  may  have  attained  to  some  measure 
of  well-being  by  cultivating  the  merely  natural 
virtues.  They  groped  for  the  truth  and  guided 
themselves  by  broken  lights.  If  we,  who  have 
the  fulness  of  light,  turn  away  from  it,  our 
darkness  will  be  complete.  "  The  '  after-Chris- 
tian,'"  writes  Devar,  "cannot  attain  even  the 
measure  of  success  that  lay  open  to  the  'fore- 
Christian.'  " 

What  then  should  be  the  attitude  of  a  wise  and 
just  government  to  the  Historic  Church  of  Christ  ? 
What  should  be  the  attitude  toward  that  Church 


364  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

of  the  various  forms  of  public  and  private  social 
initiative  which,  as  I  have  shown,  are  necessary 
to  supplement  social  legislation  ? 

I  do  not  now  speak  of  the  divine  claims  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  I  do  not  raise  the  question  of 
the  ideal  relations  which  should  subsist  between 
the  religious  and  the  civil  powers.  I  take  lower 
ground,  and  consider  what,  as  a  mere  matter  of 
expediency,  and  having  in  view  the  public  welfare, 
should  be  the  attitude  of  the  Civil  Power  to  the 
Catholic  Church.  I  appeal  even  to  those  who 
have  no  understanding  of  or  sympathy  with  our 
dogmatic  position. 

The  Catholic  Church  can  evoke  forces  which 
the  State  is  incapable  of  producing.  Dealing  as 
she  does  with  the  human  conscience,  she  can  make 
an  intimate  appeal  to  the  heart  of  man  which 
is  beyond  the  power  of  any  civil  government. 
The  Church  which  brings  man  into  direct  and 
supernatural  relations  with  his  Maker,  can  im- 
plant in  him  a  basic  principle  of  right  living  and 
a  foundation  of  social  service  which  no  govern- 
ment can  create.  The  Church  fosters  those  vir- 
tues without  which  high  civic  life  becomes  im- 
possible. Hence,  for  the  State  to  cripple  the 
Church,  to  meddle  with  her  inward  constitution, 
to   hamper   her   freedom  of  action,   is   suicidal. 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     365 

Nothing  can  take  her  place.  To  repress  her  ac- 
tion is  to  tamper  with  the  dehcate  springs  upon 
which  the  State  itself  rests.  A  secular  State  de- 
velops an  irrational  panic  at  the  supposed  menace 
to  patriotism  involved  in  the  doctrine,  say,  of  the 
Inmiaculate  Conception,  or  of  Papal  Infallibility, 
or  some  other  Catholic  dogma.  Catholic  schools 
are  banned  or  hampered,  Catholic  public  worship 
rendered  difficult  or  impossible.  The  social  in- 
fluence of  the  clergy  is  restricted,  the  charitable 
activity  of  the  Church  impeded.  What  is  the 
result  ?  We  have  seen  it  in  many  European  coun- 
tries often  enough  during  the  last  half  century. 
Public  morality  suffers,  sanctions  are  removed, 
ideals  are  dimmed.  The  State  finds  that  it  has 
raised  up  for  itself  a  host  of  evils  with  which  it 
cannot  cope.  Again  and  again  we  have  been 
presented  with  the  spectacle  of  a  bigoted  govern- 
ment expending  its  energies  on  the  suppression 
of  dogma  which  it  does  not  even  understand.  It 
neglects  its  proper  work  of  promoting  the  people's 
temporal  welfare  in  order  to  ruin  their  spiritual 
well-being.  But  the  people  who  are  thus  emanci- 
pated from  their  reverence  for  God  cease  to  retain 
their  reverence  for  the  state.  The  neglect  of  God's 
law  leads  to  the  neglect  of  human  law.  Passions 
are  unchained  and  all  authority  is  imperilled. 


366  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

Governments  sometimes  let  loose  forces  which 
they  cannot  control.  When  they  turn  God,  the 
Moral  Lawgiver,  out  of  their  public  schools,  they 
find  revelations  which  astound  our  Juvenile  Courts. 
They  seek  a  remedy.  They  introduce  ' '  Moral  Hy- 
giene," or  ''Lay  Morality"  into  the  schools. 

But  without  God  at  the  back  of  a  law  it  fails 
when  most  needed.  During  the  year  of  the  big 
famine  in  Ireland  there  was  no  record  of  a  single 
suicide ;  last  year  in  the  United  States  there 
were  no  less  than  15,000  cases  of  self-slaughter, 
and  100,000  divorces !  Are  we  going  to  try  and 
run  a  great  Republic  without  God ! 

Again,  sometimes  a  government  becomes  ob- 
sessed with  the  pernicious  idea  that  State  inter- 
ference should  be  pressed  to  its  utmost  limits  in 
education,  poor  relief,  and  so  forth.  Let  there 
be  no  schools  but  government  schools,  no  orphan- 
ages save  government  orphanages,  no  poor  relief 
save  government  poor  relief.  What  is  the  result  ? 
The  result  is  much  bickering  and  strife  and  no 
real  progress  in  education,  poor  relief,  or  any 
other  social  function.  Wise  men  see  the  danger 
and  the  folly  of  attempting  to  cripple  the  spir- 
itual forces  upon  which  national  well-being  de- 
pends. They  deprecate  religious  persecution  even 
though  they  do  not  share  the  rehgious  faith  which 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCL\L  REFORMATION     367 

is  persecuted.  Let  me  quote  the  words  of  one  of 
our  foremost  educational  authorities  in  England, 
Professor  Sadler :  — 

"The  denominational  schools  would  be  the 
means  of  preserving  the  educational  and  moral 
tradition  which  has  grown  out  of  a  religious  way 
of  life,  and  which  appeals  to  many  temperaments 
(though  not  to  all)  as  does  no  other  character- 
forming  influence  in  education.  It  is  in  these 
schools  too  that  the  teaching  of  the  organized 
religious  bodies,  in  its  application  to  the  needs  of 
young  people,  would  find  continuity  and  develop- 
ment. .  .  . 

"For  the  nation  to  adopt  the  policy  of  priv- 
ileged secularism  would  be  to  miss  a  great  op- 
portunity. England  may,  if  she  wishes,  set  an 
example  to  the  world  in  the  generosity  and  effi- 
ciency of  her  educational  system.  She,  as  can 
no  other  great  nation,  may  unite  in  tolerant 
synthesis  diverse  types  of  school  and  diverse 
kinds  of  educational  influence,  and  in  this,  as  in 
other  branches  of  pubHc  poHcy,  preserve  by  a  bold 
combination  of  opposites  her  historical  continuity 
and  her  public  peace."  (Presidential  Address  to 
the  Teachers'  Guild,  1909.) 

These  are  wise  words,  inspired  by  a  true  pa- 
triotism.    They  are  the  words  of  one  who  is  zeal- 


368  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

ous  for  true  social  well-being,  irrespective  of  creed 
or  country.  As  in  education,  so  in  poor  relief, 
State  action  is  called  for,  but  such  action  must  not 
be  employed  to  stifle  the  initiative  that  springs 
from  religious  conviction.  If  it  is,  then  the  gov- 
ernment which  claimed  to  do  all  will  find  that  its 
task  has  grown  beyond  all  possibility  of  fulfil- 
ment. The  French  government  turns  out  the 
nuns  from  the  hospitals  —  and  finds  itself  con- 
strained to  employ  the  services  of  convicts  as 
nurses.  The  French  government  grasps  at  the 
thousand  million  of  the  congregations.  The  sum 
is  discovered  to  be  non-existent ;  but  the  French 
government  finds  itself  charged  with  the  care  of 
the  thousands  of  helpless  children  and  sufferers 
who  were  previously  given  shelter  and  education 
by  the  Congregations.  This  is  scarcely  social 
progress. 

Even  well-intentioned  Socialists  in  every  coun- 
try are  apt  to  have  the  same  prejudice  in  favour 
of  unification,  the  same  suspicion  of  private  re- 
ligious enterprise.  Even  when  they  accept  it  as 
inevitable  for  the  present,  they  regard  it  as  a  tem- 
porary expedient,  to  be  superseded  in  time  by 
State  action.  Catholics  regard  the  social  function 
of  their  religion  as  a  permanent  function.  A 
greater  or  less  degree  of  State  inspection  and  con- 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     369 

trol  may  be  necessary;  but  the  Catholic  spirit 
must  always  embody  itself  in  educational,  reform- 
atory and  charitable  institutions  of  one  kind  or 
another.     That  is  a  permanent  social  need. 

The  Catholic  spirit  has  so  embodied  itself  in 
England  and  in  the  United  States.  It  is  making 
a  solid  and  valuable  contribution  to  the  solution 
of  the  social  question.  I  have  already  spoken  of 
the  numerous  Catholic  institutions  which  exist 
for  the  direct  alleviation  of  temporal  misfortunes. 
They  embody  an  amount  of  self-sacrifice,  of  per- 
sonal service,  of  wise  and  economical  adminis- 
tration, of  true  insight  into  human  needs  which 
could  not  be  supplied  by  an  army  of  government 
officials.  If  we  Catholics  have  not  that  propor- 
tion of  lay  social  workers  among  us  which  might 
be  expected,  it  is  largely  because  those,  who,  if 
they  belonged  to  other  religious  bodies,  would 
become  lay  social  workers,  as  a  matter  of  fact 
with  us  become  members  of  religious  orders. 
Hence  their  work  is  not  so  much  in  the  public 
eye ;  yet  it  is  lifted  into  a  higher  plane  and  gains 
in  those  quahties  which  give  social  work  its 
value. 

But  let  us  penetrate  more  deeply  into  the  se- 
cret of  the  social  work  which  the  Catholic  Church 
is   carrying   on   in   countries   on   both   sides   the 

2b 


370  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

•Atlantic.  What  is  its  mainspring?  Is  it  in- 
spired by  ideals  of  mere  temporal  prosperity?  or 
has  it  an  intrinsic  value  of  its  own  not  to  be  found 
in  the  ideals  of  time  ? 

The  greatest  statesmen  in  all  ages  have  under- 
stood and  prized  the  social  force,  the  social  cohe- 
sion, and  the  stimulus  to  duty  which  spring  from 
the  Catholic  conception  of  life.  Constantine 
knew  it;  Napoleon  knew  it;  Washington  knew 
it;  present-day  statesmen  in  the  United  States 
know  it.  It  is  the  second-rate  politician  who 
ignores  it.  The  Catholic  Church  is  the  stay  and 
support  of  States,  the  abiding  foundation  of  civic 
duty  and  social  service.  Belief  in  the  Fatherhood 
of  God  creates  the  Brotherhood  of  man.  Rever- 
ence for  God's  authority*  implies  reverence  for 
that  authority  which  God  has  delegated  to  civil 
rulers.  No  purely  ''rational"  grounds  for  civic 
obedience  and  social  service  have  yet  been  dis- 
covered. St.  Augustine  long  ago  pointed  to  the 
beneficent  influence  of  the  Church. 

''Let  those  who  say  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
is  adverse  to  the  State  .  .  .  show  us  an  army 
of  soldiers  such  as  the  doctrine  of  Christ  has  com- 
manded them  to  be,  let  them  show  us  such  gov- 
ernors of  provinces,  such  husbands  and  wives, 
such  parents  and  children,  such  masters  and  ser- 


SOCIALISM  AND   SOCIAL  REFORMATION     371 

vants,  such  kings,  such  judges  as  the  Christian 
teaching  would  have  them  to  be,  nay,  such  con- 
tributors of  all  manner  of  taxes  and  such  gatherers 
of  taxes ;  and  then  let  them  have  the  face,  if  they 
can,. to  tell  us  that  such  teaching  is  injurious  to 
the  State."     (Ep.  138  ad  Marcellinum.) 

Truth  to  tell,  with  us  CathoHcs  patriotism  is 
something  more  than  a  sentiment,  a  tradition. 
It  is  a  growth  of  our  creed.  It  is  that  rare,  rich 
bloom  whose  roots  he  buried  deep  in  the  virgin 
soil  of  our  holy  rehgion.  Hence  the  words  so 
often  quoted:  "The  better  the  CathoHc  the 
better  the  citizen."  Secularists  may  try  to  snatch 
the  flower  from  the  stem  and  decorate  their  own 
philosophy  with  it,  but  the  flower  will  wither.  It 
needs  its  native  soil. 

The  Cathohc  Church  is  doing  an  enormous 
social  work  in  the  United  States  and  in  England 
either  directly  by  means  of  her  own  children,  or 
indirectly  by  means  of  those  who  retain  some  part 
of  her  beliefs  and  her  traditions.  Such  work  is 
a  great  national  asset ;  to  trifle  with  it  would  be 
to  provoke  national  disaster. 

And  if  you  point  to  Catholics  who  are  making 
no  contribution  to  social  welfare  —  to  Catholics 
who  either  give  themselves  up  to  self-indulgence 
and  ease,  or  have  fallen  below  the  line  of  efficiency 


372  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

and  occupy  our  prisons  and  reformatories  —  then 
I  answer  that  these  men  have  failed  not  because 
of  their  CathoHcism,  but  in  spite  of  it.  And  I 
would  ask  our  critics  to  remember  the  heavy  social 
disabilities  which  still  press  upon  Catholics  in  so 
many  forms  in  the  old  country.  We  are  still  to  a 
large  extent  ostracized.  Our  children  are  shut  out 
from  educational  advantages  which  are  within 
the  reach  of  others;  our  professional  men  still 
find,  in  too  many  cases,  that  their  faith  is  a  bar 
to  their  advancement.  Moreover,  the  numbing 
effects  of  a  far  more  severe  persecution  still  re- 
main with  us.  Give  us  a  chance,  give  us  time, 
give  us  fair  play,  and  you  will  see  that  St.  Augus- 
tine spoke  truth,  and  that  the  Catholic  spirit  is 
society's  best  asset. 

Certainly  no  body  of  men,  no  organization  on 
this  earth  is  so  whole-heartedly  loyal  to  its  flag 
as  Catholics  are.  In  the  United  States,  from  the 
Hudson  to  the  Yukon,  is  stretched  one  long  line 
of  Catholic  American  citizens  loyal  and  true  to 
the  Stars  and  the  Stripes;  and  from  the  Golden 
Gates  in  the  south  to  the  Arctic  Circle  in  the  north 
there  is  drawn  up  another  line  for  defence  of  coun- 
try, equally  brave,  equally  strong.  What  a  match- 
less force  is  the  Old  Church !  Fifteen  miUions 
and  more  of  citizens  recruited  into  one  mighty 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMATION     373 

army,  all  inspired  by  the  same  faith,  all  actuated 
by  the  same  motives  in  this  land  stretching  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific !  Be  sure,  that  if 
ever  a  last  shot,  which  God  avert,  were  to  be 
fired  for  the  Star-spangled  Banner,  the  man  to 
fire  it  would  be  not  a  Socialist,  but  a  Catholic. 

Such,  then,  is  the  Catholic  solution  of  the  social 
question,  —  the  Church,  the  State,  and  Private 
Initiative  working  in  harmonious  concord.  It  would 
be  going  beyond  my  province  to  state  what  in 
detail  should  be  the  reforms  undertaken  by  the 
Triple  Alliance  formed  by  the  united  action  of 
Church,  State,  and  Private  Enterprise.  But  this 
much  I  may  venture  to  say,  that  no  concerted 
action  of  any  kind  can  be  effective  and  lasting  in 
its  results  unless  it  becomes  penetrated  and  per- 
meated with  the  spirit  of  Christian  justice  and 
Christian  charity.  I  say  penetrated  and  perme- 
ated not  merely  with  justice  as  laid  down  in 
law  books,  but  as  written  on  the  tablets  of  the 
heart,  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  and  in  the  spirit 
of  His  teaching.  Nor  is  this  enough  without  its 
association  with  the  Charity  of  Christ,  for  without 
this  interior  law  of  charity,  justice  may  strike  too 
hard  a  bargain  to  satisfy  human  nature  as  actually 
it  is  constituted. 

Instead,  then,  of  going  on  to  Socialism  with  all 


374  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

its  blindness  to  consequences  destructive  of  social 
and  industrial  well-being,  let  us  come  back  to 
Christ  with  His  laws  adjusting  relations  between 
Capital  and  Labour. 

Christ,  I  say,  and  Christ  only,  can  be  Arbi- 
trator in  the  case  before  us,  in  the  conflict  be- 
tween Larger  Dividends  and  Higher  Wages. 

If  only  employers  and  employees  were  to  heed 
Christ's  ruhng,  they  would  both  begin  to  reahze 
that  there  can  be  no  permanent  settlement  of  the 
industrial  problem  till  they  both  alike  accept  His 
principles  of  justice,  equity,  and  charity.  My 
final  word,  then,  to  all  persons  interested  in  the 
social  and  industrial  problems  of  the  day  is  this  :  — 

To  employers  I  would  say :  Rally  to  the  stand- 
ard of  Christ,  the  civilized  world's  Great 
Reformer,  Inspirer,  and  Liberator.  Exchange 
the  rivalry  between  wealth  and  wages  for  a 
fairer  division  of  the  profits.  Instead  of  mak- 
ing exorbitant  profits  your  aim,  let  profit- 
sharing  be  your  ambition.  Come  once  more  to 
reahze  that  the  Fatherhood  of  God  means  a 
Brotherhood  inspired  and  actuated  by  a  spirit  of 
justice  and  charity  manifesting  itself  in  sympa- 
thy, patience,  and  forbearance  with  all  men. 
You  are  only  the  stewards  of  God.  One  day 
you  will  have  to  give  an  account  of  your  goods. 


SOCL\LISM  AND   SOCIAL  REFORMATION    375 

You  will  have  to  give  an  account  of  how  you 
shared  them  with  the  men  who  helped  you  win 
them. 

To  wage-earners,  men  and  women,  I  would  say : 
You  have  a  right  to  form  unions  and  by  means 
of  unions  to  enforce  your  just  demands  for  a 
living  wage  and  human  conditions  both  in  your 
workshops  and  in  your  homes. 

But  there  is  a  word  of  warning  which  you 
must  let  me  add :  it  is  a  word  which  I  utter  as  a 
friend  of  the  workingman,  as  a  friend  who  in 
season  and  out  of  season  has  lifted  his  voice  in 
behalf  of  the  toiling  masses,  and  who  during 
these  Conferences  has  had  nothing  more  at  heart 
than  to  win  a  hearing  for  the  toilers.  That 
word  of  warning  is  :  in  your  labour  unions,  in  your 
disputes  with  your  employers,  nay,  even  in  the 
sad  necessity  of  a  strike,  never,  never  commit 
yourselves  to  the  leadership  of  men  who  are  the 
enemies  of  Christ  and  who,  if  true  to  their  prin- 
ciples, must  rob  you  of  the  dearest  possession 
you  have,  your  Christian  Faith. 

To  all  I  would  say,  no  matter  what  our  posi- 
tion and  work  in  life  may  be,  let  us  make  it  our 
ambition,  as  it  is  our  mission,  to  teach  all  the 
world  that  we  all  have  a  common  origin  and  a 
common  destiny ;    that  the  same  human  nature 


376  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

in  US  has  the  same  yearnings  for  peace,  rest,  and 
happiness;  that  we  all  have  the  same  Saviour, 
that  in  less  than  no  time  our  present  differences  will 
vanish  like  a  dream,  and  that  then,  if  we  be  worthy, 
shadows  will  give  place  to  realities,  faith  shall 
pass  into  vision,  hope  shall  be  more  than  realized, 
and  all  men  will  discover  that  the  conflicts  of 
time  were  meant  to  be  victories  for  eternity,  and 
the  rivalry  of  the  Brotherhood,  a  rivalry  of  ser- 
vice in  the  interests  of  our  common  Father  in 
Heaven,  whose  Home  and  whose  love  shall  be 
ours  throughout  the  everlasting  day  of  Eternity. 


INDEX 


AbBenteeism,  attitude  of  Catho- 
lic  Church   toward,   303. 

Absolute  right  of  property,  criti- 
cism of  theory  of,  305-306, 
309. 

Accidents,  industrial,  compen- 
sation of  employees  for,  302. 

Alaska,  Socalism  in,  84,  198- 
203,  280-281. 

Altruism,  identity  of  Christian 
charity  and,  26. 

Ambrose,  St.,  misconstruction 
of,  meaning  of,  by  Socialists, 
232-233. 

America,  divorce  practices  in, 
131 ;  social  conditions  among 
the  poor  in,  339-345. 

Ancillon,  M.,  quoted  on  the 
Papacy  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
30. 

Anselm,  St.,  23. 

Anti-religious  harangues  of  Bo- 
cialist    speakers.    318-322. 

Antoine,  P6re,  on  State  exer- 
cise of  right  of  arbitration, 
303-304. 

Aristotle,  biological  concept  of 
society  found  in,  51. 

Army,  false  analogy  drawn  be- 
tween socialization  of  private 
property  and   the,   275,  276. 

Artists,  question  of  pay  of,  for 
their  lalxjur,  272-273,  327- 
328. 

A$ino,  revolting  parodies  of  Chris- 
tian Lostitutious  in  the,  164. 


Atheism,  alliance  between  So- 
cialism and,  45-46,  158,  159, 
160  ff. 

Atheists,  appeals  of  Socialism  to, 
318-320. 

Augustine,  St.,  and  the  biologi- 
cal concept  of  society,  51 ; 
on  the  Church  as  a  beneficent 
influence  in  the  State,  370- 
371. 

Authority,  form  of  civil,  de- 
manded by  God,  62. 

Aveling,  Dr.,  on  opposition  of 
Socialism  to  Capitalism  and 
Christianity,  158. 


Bailey,  W.  B.,  "Modern  Social 
Conditions"  by,  quoted,  342- 
343. 

Ball,  Sidney,  Fabian  Tract  by, 
quoted,  189-190. 

Bax,  Belfort,  quoted,  157,  163, 
166 ;  on  the  Christian  Social- 
ist as  "a  singular  hybrid," 
210. 

Bebel,  Ferdinand  August,  on 
the  obliteration  of  the  indi- 
vidual, 79-80  ;  on  man's  desire 
for  immediate  good,  101 ;  on 
social  position  of  children,  134; 
on  antagonism  of  Socialism 
to   Christianity,    158,    162. 

Bellamy,  Edward,  Cooperative 
Commonwealth  described  by, 
56 ;   mentioned,  324. 


377 


378 


INDEX 


Bclloc,  quoted  on  position  of 
Socialism  as  to  private  capital, 
245-246 ;  An  Examination  of 
Socialism  by,  quoted,  285-286. 

Berger,  Victor,  280. 

Bernstein,  on  Marxism  and  reli- 
gion, 156. 

Biological  concept  of  society, 
47-55. 

Blatchford,  Robert,  on  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  as  a  mass  of 
error,  162 ;  attacks  on  Chris- 
tianity by,  circulated  by  In- 
dependent Labour  Party,  183 ; 
the  Socialism  of,  considered 
with  regard  to  religion,  185  ff. ; 
Rev.  R.  J.  Campbell's  ap- 
proval of,  225. 

Burkitt,  Professor,  208  n. 


Call,  New  York,  quoted,  203- 
204. 

Campbell,  R.  J.,  "Christianity 
and  Social  Order"  of,  187; 
quoted,  225  ;  neglect  of  super- 
natural side  of  Christ's  teach- 
ing by,  228-229. 

Capitalism,  reasons  attributed  to, 
for  liberality  to  religious  bodies, 
205.     See  Private  property. 

Capitalistic  system,  work  per- 
formed under,  could  not  be 
done  by  Socialism,  259 ;  need 
of  reformation  of,  282 ;  so- 
cial wrongs  due  to  abuses  of, 
and  not  to  system  itself,  333- 
334. 

Cash  bonus  plan  of  profit-shar- 
ing, 356. 

Catholicism,  position  of,  under 
a  socialist  regime  in  England, 
192-197.  See  Church,  the 
Catholic. 

Cathrein,  Father,  quoted,  75 ; 
cited,  291. 


Character,  development  of,  stimu- 
lated by  private  ownership, 
261. 

Charity,  duties  of,  299-303. 

Charity  Organization  Society, 
48. 

Chicago,  material  for  socialistic 
arguments  found  among  chil- 
dren of,  256-257. 

Child  labour,  in  England,  337- 
338 ;  in  Pennsylvania  silk 
mills,  342-343. 

Children,  position  of,  in  regard 
to  parents  and  the  family, 
in  the  view  of  the  Church, 
132-134  ;  in  the  socialist  view, 
134-136 ;  the  matter  of  re- 
stricting  number   of,    142-143. 

Chizza,  "Money,  Poverty,  and 
Riches"  by,  quoted,  339. 

Christ,  the  socialist  and  the 
Catholic  views  of  religion  of, 
217  ff. ;  the  miracles  of,  220- 
223;  the  Parables  of,  223- 
224;  is  the  final  arbitrator 
and  adjuster  of  the  relations 
between  capital  and  labour, 
374. 

Christianity,  principles  of  So- 
cialism set  over  against  those 
of,  38-39 ;  proposed  super- 
session of,  by  Socialism,  155  ff. ; 
the  "new  Christianity"  of 
the  SociaHsts,  177-178;  the 
real,  rightly  held  to  be  the 
most  dreaded  enemy  of  So- 
cialism, 178 ;  the  fate  of,  under 
a  socialistic  regime,  192-197 ; 
total  incompatibility  of  So- 
ciahsm  and,  203-207. 

Christian  Socialism,  repudiation 
of,  by  thoroughgoing  Socialists, 
198-202 ;  called  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms,  204 ;  slight 
chance  held  by,  of  counter- 
acting anti-Christian  tone  of 
current  Socialism,  208;    in  so 


INDEX 


379 


far  as  really  socialistic,  has 
abandoned  most  characteristic 
and  \-ital  parts  of  Christianity, 
208,  213  ff. ;  socialist  leaders 
quoted  on,  210-211 ;  slightness 
of  contribution  of,  to  cause  of 
Socialism,  211 ;  the  other- 
worldliness  of  true  Christian 
religion  contrasted  with  doc- 
trines of,  215  ff. ;  views  of, 
concerning  the  miracles  of 
Christ,  220-223 ;  concerning 
the  Parables,  223-224;  errors 
in  reasoning  of,  concerning 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  224  S. ; 
misconstruction  by,  of  de- 
nunciations of  the  Prophets 
as  a  warrant  for  Socialism, 
227 ;  type  of,  which  denies 
to  Christ  any  object  save  that 
of  material  reform,  neglecting 
the  supernatural,  228-229 ; 
refutation  of  arguments  of,  as 
to  the  early  Church  and  the 
Fathers,  229-233 ;  insecure 
foundations  of  claims  concern- 
ing the  Religious  Orders  as 
socialistic,  233-235 ;  attitude 
of  the  Catholic  Church  toward 
theory  of,  235-236. 

Christian  Socialist,  The,  paper 
called,  201. 

Christian  Socialist  League,  the, 
209. 

Church,  the  Catholic,  debt  of 
the  workingman  to,  20-23 ; 
the  Catholic  democracy  which 
sprang  from,  23-25;  absence 
of  class  distinctions  in,  24-25 ; 
the  foundations  of  modern 
civilization  laid  by,  26 ;  on 
the  side  of  the  workingman 
now  as  earlier,  32 ;  the  gulf 
between  Socialism  and,  40  ff. ; 
place  of,  in  the  socialist 
Bchemc,  46-47 ;  relation  be- 
tween  the   individual    and,    in 


the  Catholic  point  of  view, 
53  ;  the  State  a  God-given  in- 
stitution according  to  stand- 
point of,  69-71 ;  value  of  the 
individual  laid  stress  on  by, 
81-82;  ideal  held  up  to  the 
individual  by,  85-87 ;  refuta- 
tion of  charges  against,  of 
encouraging  in  men  indiffer- 
ence to  worldly  conditions, 
90-91 ;  glorious  record  of, 
concerning  Christian  charity, 
91-93;  elevation  of  the  family 
by,  120  ff. ;  the  union  between 
Christ  and,  as  a  standard  for 
gauging  Tightness  and  sacred- 
ness  of  wedded  life,  122-125; 
the  source  of  the  present-day 
position  of  woman,  126-127 ; 
attitude  of,  toward  divorce, 
127-132 ;  chief  reason  for 
opposing  Socialism  found  in 
the  latter's  menace  to  the 
family,  150-152 ;  attitude  of, 
toward  so-called  Christian  So- 
cialism, 198  ff..  235-2.36;  so- 
cialistic principles  attributed 
to  the  early,  229-230;  right 
to  own  private  capital  upheld 
by.  246  ff.,  294  ff. ;  teaching 
as  to  right  of  man  to  acquire 
whatever  is  necessary  for  main- 
tenance of  his  life,  249-250; 
the  authority  of  accumulated 
experience  behind  utterances 
of,  307-308;  judgment  of, 
as  to  the  wisdom  of  possession 
of  private  capital,  308-309 ; 
position  occupied  by,  between 
the  two  conflicting  dogmas 
of  ownership,  310-311 ;  State 
action  and  private  action 
should  combine  with,  to  solve 
the  social  question,  347 ;  ac- 
tion of,  in  social  reform, 
361  ff. ;  reasons  why  a  neces- 
sary factor  in  social  progress, 


380 


INDEX 


362-363;  proper  attitude  to 
be  taken  by  the  State  toward, 
363-365 ;  social  work  con- 
sidered a  permanent  function 
by,  368-369;  patriotism  the 
mainspring  of  the  social  work 
of,  370-373. 

Church  Socialist  Quarterly,  quoted 
and  cited,  207  n.,  209. 

Clarion,  anti-Christianity  of  So- 
ciahsm  advocated  in  the,  185  ff. 

Class  religion,  the  prospective, 
314. 

Clement  VII,  Pope,  divorce  re- 
fused to  Henry  VIII  by,  128. 

Clergymen,  mistake  made  by,  in 
taking  to  Socialism,  208-209. 

Clifford,  Dr.,  Fabian  tracts  of, 
187. 

Collectivism,  Christian  Social- 
ism a  form  of,  198. 

Community  of  goods  attributed 
to  the  early  Church,  230. 

Competition,  desirability  of,  274. 

Constitution,  worth  of  the  Ameri- 
can, 71. 

Control  of  property,  and  use  of, 
294-297. 

Cooperative  business  concerns, 
355. 

Cooperative  Commonwealth,  con- 
ditions in  the  ideal  socialistic, 
46-59 ;  railways,  land,  and 
farming  in  the,  57-58 ;  the 
ideal  of  Socialism,  240 ;  ques- 
tion of  possibility  of  organiz- 
ing, 323-325. 

Copartnership  systems,  355-356. 

Cutts,  Dr.,  quoted,  26-27. 


D 


Dearmer,  Percy,  Fabian  Tract 
by,  quoted,  217-218,  220- 
221,  222;  arguments  of,  that 
the  Church  Fathers  inculcated 
Socialism,  231-232. 


Death  rate  in  London,  336. 

Debts,  injustice  of  putting  ofif 
payment  of,  299. 

Democracy,  spirit  of,  created 
by  the  Catholic  Church,  23- 
27 ;  true  individualism  a  neces- 
sary basis  of  sound,  79. 

Denominational  schools,  195-197, 
366,  367. 

Department  store,  declamations 
of  socialist  orators  against 
the,  316-318. 

Devas,  C.  8.,  quoted  and  cited, 
119,  126,  136-137,  363. 

Divorce,  wrongness  of  civil  law 
of  complete,  128-129. 

Drage,  Geoffrey,  quoted,  213. 

Duties  of  ownership,  296  fif. 


E 


Economic  Liberalism,  anti-Catho- 
lic wave  of,  305. 

Education  of  children,  133-136; 
Catholic,  under  a  socialist 
regime,  194-197 ;  superiority  of 
Catholic  to  secular,  195-197 ; 
State  interference  in,  366-367. 

Employers,  question  of  right 
of,  to  residual  surplus  value, 
269-272;     duties   of,    302-303. 

Engels,  F.,  quoted  on  real  sig- 
nificance of  Socialism,  37 ;  an- 
tagonism of,  to  Christianity, 
156,  157 ;  on  private  property, 
religion,  and  marriage  as  blocks 
in  the  way  of  Socialism,  240. 

England,  practical  identity  of 
Socialism  in,  with  the  con- 
tinental brand,  180 ;  social  con- 
ditions in,  336-338. 

Enterprise,  effects  of  Christian- 
ity and  of  SociaUsm  on,  con- 
trasted, 94-96. 

Established  Church,  interest  of 
clergymen  of,  in  social  evils, 
208. 


INDEX 


381 


Evolution,  materialistic  idea  of, 
held  by  Socialism,  43-45. 

Example,  duties  pertaining  to, 
303. 


Fabian  Society,  considered  with 
regard  to  religion,  187-195 ; 
harmless  character  of  one  group 
of  members,  187-188 ;  re- 
sults lacking  in  the  way  of 
political  organization  of  work- 
ing classes,  188-189 ;  secular- 
ism of,  as  shown  in  writings 
of  certain  members,  189-190. 

Factory  legislation  in  Europe 
and  America,  348-350. 

Family,  place  of,  in  the  so- 
cialistic scheme,  46-47 ;  es- 
sential qualities  of,  as  an  in- 
etitution,  119-120;  elevation 
of,  to  a  higher  plane  by  the 
Catholic  Church,  1:^0  ff. ;  ideal 
life  of  the,  introduced  by 
Christ,  126 ;  woman  given  her 
right  position  in,  by  Chris- 
tianity, 126-127 ;  position  of 
children  in  regard  to  the,  132- 
134 ;  viewed  as  a  failure  by 
Socialists,  140-141  ;  attack  of 
Socialism  on  the,  143  ff. ;  is 
the  great  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  Socialism,  149-150;  sup- 
posed effect  of  Socialism  on  the, 
195-197 ;  as  a  God-given  in- 
stitution, justifies  right  to 
private  ownership  of  property, 
252-253  ;  ignorance  of  human 
nature  shown  by  Socialism 
in  protests  against,  262  ff. ; 
a  school  for  the  practice  of 
citizenship,  263. 

Farmers  and  the  socialist  State, 
57-58.  315-316. 

Farrar,  "Hulscan  Lectures"  by, 

,    quoted,  22. 


Fathers,  Christian,  wrongly  cited 
concerning  position  of  women, 
126  ;  charged  with  inculcating 
pure  Socialism,  229-233;  ef- 
forts of  Socialists  to  enlist 
in  their  cause,  246-247. 

Ferri,  attack  on  religion  by,  160. 

Feudalism,  part  enacted  by, 
in    medijfival    Europe,    19. 

France,  object-lesson  concerning 
State  interference  in  schools 
from,  368. 

Freedom,  paralysis  of  man's, 
by  Socialism,   110-112,  283  ff. 


G 


Garriguet,  Abbe,  "Regime  de 
la  Propriete"  by,  303  n. ; 
criticism  by,  of  theory  of 
absolute  right  of  property, 
305-306. 

George,  David  Lloyd,  200. 

George,  Henry,  on  Socialism 
as  opposed  to  religion,  161 ; 
arguments  of,  concerning  con- 
trol of  property,  292-294. 

German  Socialists,  attacks  of, 
on  religion,  184. 

Glasier,  Bruce,  on  the  relations 
between  Socialism  and  reli- 
gion, 165-166. 

God,  existence  of  a  personal, 
denied  by  Socialism,  43 ;  ig- 
noring of,  leads  to  an  alliance 
with  atheism,  45-46 ;  the 
Catholic  view  of  the  State 
based  on  belief  in  existence  of, 
60-61  ;  question  of  form  of 
government  demanded  by,  62 ; 
according  to  designs  of,  man 
must   own   property,    248. 

Goldstein,  "Socialism"  by, 
quoted,  163. 

Gorst,  Sir  John,  on  infant  mor- 
tality among  the  poor  of  Eng- 
land, 337, 


382 


INDEX 


Government,  question  of  form 
of,  demanded  by  God,  62. 

Gregory  the  Great,   Pope,  30. 

Gronland,    Horace,    quoted,    102. 

Guizot,  on  influence  of  the  Church 
through  the  ages,  23. 


Hardie,  Keir,  on  the  value  of 
an  ideal,  73 ;  on  Socialism 
and  religion,  175 ;  on  the 
Independent  Labour  Party  as 
a  socialist  organization  and 
a  religion,  182. 

Headlam,  Stewart,  166,  187, 
188;    quoted,  212,  221,  223. 

Herder,  quoted  on  the  Papacy 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  31. 

Herrons,  G.  S.,  on  Christianity 
as  a  parasite,  162,  176. 

Hillquit,  Morris,  quoted,  17, 
39  ;  on  socialist  theory  of 
evolution,  43-45 ;  on  the  rela- 
tion of  the  individual  to  the 
State,  50-51  ;  on  the  socialist 
State,  56-57;  on  the  "Evo- 
lution of  the  Moral  Sense," 
167-171 ;   mentioned,  324,  327. 

Home,  the,  as  a  pillar  of  the 
State,  118;  power  of  the 
word,  140 ;  disorganization  of 
the,  by  Socialism,   143  ff. 

Housing  of  the  poor  in  England, 
336. 

Human  element  in  business, 
355,  357. 

Human  nature,  power  of  So- 
cialism and  of  Christianity 
on,  96-100. 

Hunter,  Robert,  on  the  greatness 
of  Bebel,  158 ;  on  the  an- 
tagonism of  Socialism  to  Chris- 
tianity, 158 ;  on  the  Fabian 
Society,  188-189 ;  on  poverty 
in  the  United  States,  339. 


Husslein,  Father  Joseph,  articles 
by,  167. 

Hyndman,  H.  M.,  on  Christian- 
ity as  a  dead  creed,  210. 


Ideal,  the  value  of  an,  72-73 ; 
the  Socialist  and  the  Chris- 
tian, contrasted,  74,  82,  85- 
87,  109-110;  the  one  and  only, 
for  suffering  humanity  is  Jesus 
the  Saviour,  89 ;  works  of 
Christian  charity  resulting  from 
the  true  Christian  ideal,  91-93. 

Immigrants  and  rate  of  wages, 
341-342. 

Independence,  loss  of,  under 
a   socialistic   regime,    283-287. 

Independent  Labour  Party,  na- 
ture of  the  "religion"  taught 
by,  181-185. 

Individual,  position  of  the,  un- 
der the  socialist  regime,  48- 
49  ;  error  in  the  socialist 
view  of,  52 ;  position  of,  as 
a  member  of  the  Church  and 
as  a  citizen,  53-54 ;  claims  of 
the,  must  not  be  forgotten  or 
ignored,  76-77 ;  the  ideal  held 
up  to  the,  by  the  Church,  85- 
87 ;  the  Christian  message 
primarily  for  the,  and  not  for 
society,  215-216 ;  obligations 
and  rights  of,  outside  of  the 
State,  249 ;  primary  right  of, 
to  acquire  whatever  is  neces- 
sary for  maintenance  of  his 
life,  250 ;  right  of,  to  self- 
development,  251-252. 

Individualism,  impossibility  of 
the  philosophy  of  a  pure,  75; 
reaction  against,  carried  to 
an  extreme  by  Socialism,  75- 
76;  a  true,  is  the  necessary 
basis  of  sound  Democracy, 
79 ;    value  of,  from  viewpoint 


INDEX 


383 


of  the  Church,  81-82;  the 
obliteration  of,  by  Socialism 
an  inversion  of  the  natural 
order,  110-112. 

"Industrial  Democracy,"  men- 
tioned, 331. 

Infant  mortality  in  England, 
336-337. 

Intemperance  in  England,   337. 

International  Socialist  Review,  il- 
lustration in,   278-279. 

Ireland,  marriage  lessons  to  be 
learned   from,    131,    139-140. 

Isaias,  invectives  of,  miscon- 
strued into  a  divine  warrant 
for  Socialism,  227. 


Justice,  duties  of,  among  social 
obligations  in  Catholic  Church 
system,  299. 


Kant,  Immanuel,  63. 

Kelleher,  quoted,  39. 

Ketteler,  Bishop,  305. 

Kingdom  of  God,  nature  of  the, 
established  by  Christ,  214- 
215 ;  use  of  phrase,  as  an 
equivalent  of  the  socialist 
State,  224-225  ;  attempts  made 
to  ju.stify  use,  by  reference  to 
the  Bible,  225-227;  socialistic 
basis  for,  discovered  in  de- 
nunciations of  the  Prophets, 
227. 

Klein,  Nicholas,  Socialist  Primer 
by,  135. 

Klondike,  Socialism  in  the,  198- 
200,  280-281. 


Labourers,    wages   of,    299.      See 

Workingmen. 
Labour  unions,  354,  375. 


Lafargue,  Paul,  quoted,  16-17. 

La  Monte,  R.  R.,  "Socialism, 
Positive  and  Negative,"  by, 
168-169. 

Land,  use  of,  in  the  socialist 
State,  57. 

Langton,  Cardinal  Stephen,  24. 

Leatham,  J.,  quoted,  203,  210. 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  quoted,  26. 

Legislation,  remedy  for  social 
wrongs  not  to  be  found  solely 
in,  345-346 ;  should  be  com- 
bined with  work  by  the  Church 
and  by  individuals,  347  ;  prog- 
ress made  in  social,  in  past 
century,  348-350. 

Leibnitz,  quoted,  43. 

Leo  XIII,  Pope,  Encyclicals  of, 
13,  32-34,  41,  71,  113-114, 
133-134,  151-152,  258,  259, 
277 ;  on  the  use  of  the  term 
"Christian  Socialism,"  236; 
on  private  ownership  of  prop- 
erty, 286-287,  296;  on  the 
labourer  and  his  wage,  299; 
on  remedying  present-day  so- 
cial wrongs,   345,  340,  347. 

Le  Pay,  P^ench  Socialist,  cited, 
139. 

Liebknecht,  proclaims  alliance 
of  Socialism  and  atheism,  159. 

Life,  average  length  of,  among 
poor  in  cities,  343-344 ;  legis- 
lation looking  to  conserva- 
tion of,  348-350. 

Lucan,  maxim  of,  quoted,  81. 


M 

MacDonald,  .J.  Ramsay,  quoted, 
46-47  ;  on  Ferri's  attitude  tow- 
ard religion,  capitalism,  mar- 
riage, and  private  property, 
160;  on  Socialism  and  reli- 
gion, 175. 

Manning,  Cardinal,  23,  337. 


384 


INDEX 


Marriage,  a  great  sacrament 
under  the  Church,  120-121, 
126 ;  as  a  mere  social  contract, 
is  shorn  of  beauty  and  becomes 
a  market  good,  122  ;  rightness 
and  sacredness  of,  gauged  by 
union  between  Christ  and  His 
Church,  122-125;  divorce  as 
a  violation  of  the  sanctity  of, 
128-132 ;  socialist  teachings 
concerning,  144-147. 

Marx,  Karl,  undiminished  in- 
fluence of,  155 ;  anti-Chris- 
tian tone  of  Socialism  of,  156 ; 
holds  that  abolition  of  reli- 
gion is  necessary  for  true  happi- 
ness of  the  people,  157. 

Masterman,  C.  F.  G.,  on  the 
value  of  an  ideal,  72-73. 

"Merrie  England,"  Blatchford's, 
185. 

Middle  Ages,  position  of  labour 
in  the,  18-20. 

Millerand,  on  the  separateness 
of  Socialism  and  Christian 
Socialism,  211. 

MUlionnaires,  numbers  of,  339- 
340. 

Milman,  H.,  quoted,  29-30. 

Ming,  quoted,  119-120. 

Minimum  wage,  the  matter  of 
a,  351-353. 

Miracles  of  Christ,  view  of,  from 
standpoint  of  Christian  So- 
cialists, 220-223. 

Monastic    communities,    distinc- 

^  tion  between  Socialism  and, 
233-235. 


N 


Natural  equity,  duties  of,  302- 
303. 

Nearing,  Scott,  quoted,  343. 

Newman,  Cardinal,  cited,  17 ; 
on  the  individuality  of  the 
human   soul,    77-79 ;     on   the 


inspiration  derived  from  hopes 

of  a  future  world,  106. 
New    York    City,     millionnaires 

in,  339-340. 
Nietzsche,  Friedrich,  48. 


Occupation,  acquisition  of  prop- 
erty by  method  of,  290-293. 

Organization  of  the  socialist 
State,  question  of  the,  323- 
325. 

"Origin  of  the  Family,  The," 
socialist    book,    144-145. 

Other -worldliness  in  religion 
founded  by  Christ,  215-216. 

Ownership  of  property,  natural 
desire  for,  strangled  by  So- 
cialism, 112-113;  theory  of 
Socialism  and  of  the  Church 
concerning,      112-114;  So- 

cialism and  the  rights  of, 
237  ff. ;  recognized  methods 
of  establishing  rights  of,  289- 
293 ;  duties  accompanying, 
297  fl. ;  the  obligation  to  pay 
a  just  wage,  299 ;  payment  of 
just  debts,  299 ;  duties  of 
charity,  299-303;  duty  of 
the  State  toward  rights  of, 
303-304.  See  Private  prop- 
erty. 


Papacy,  attitude  of,  toward  capi- 
tal and  labour,  14  £f . ;  part  taken 
by,  in  the  Church's  defence 
of  popular  liberty,  27-32; 
Leo  XIII's  Encyclical  on 
Labour  illustrates  attitude  of, 
concerning  capital  and  labour, 
32-34;  the  Socialist  Philos- 
opher and  the,  contracted, 
35-39. 


INDEX 


385 


Parables  of  Christ,  views  of 
Christian  Socialists  concern- 
ing, 223-224. 

Parochial  schools,  195-197,  366, 
367. 

Patriotism  as  a  growth  of  the 
Cathohc  creed,   370-373. 

Paul,  St.,  biological  concept  of 
society  found  in,  51 ;  on  mar- 
riage, 121. 

Pay,  question  of  regulation  of, 
by  Socialists,  for  different 
grades  of  work,  272-273,  325- 
329. 

Pearson,  Kari,  on  the  differing 
\'iews  of  Socialism  and  Chris- 
tianity, 161. 

Philosophy,  a  poor  substitute 
for  the  religion  of  Christ,  88- 
89. 

Pittsburg,  conditions  in,  to  be 
cited  by  Socialists,  254-255. 

Pius  X,  Pope,  13-14. 

Polygamy,  the  forbidding  of, 
by  the  Church,  148. 

Poor  relief,  State  interference  in, 
366,  368. 

Poverty,  statistics  of,  in  United 
Kingdom  and  United  States, 
339. 

Private  initiative  as  a  factor  in 
social  progress,  354-361. 

Private  property,  the  material 
basis  of  society,  237  ;  signifies 
man's  individual  sovereignty 
over  his  home,  capital,  inheri- 
tance, etc.,  238;  to  be  de- 
fended rather  than  attacked, 
239 ;  blocks  the  way  of  So- 
cialism, 240 ;  distinction  be- 
tween Catholic  and  socialist 
reforms  connected  with,  240- 
244 ;  statement  of  position 
of  Socialism  as  to,  245-246 ; 
right  of  individual  to  own, 
upheld  by  dUhoUc  Churfji, 
246    ff. ;     right    to    own,    is    a 

2c 


divine  disposition,  248 ;  a 
result  of  man's  duty  to  pro- 
vide for  himself  and  right  of 
self-development,  250-252  ;  the 
family,  a  God-given  institu- 
tion, justifies  ownership  of, 
252-253 ;  material  for  argu- 
ments of  Socialists  against, 
254-257 ;  society  has  gone 
on  under  regime  of,  258 ;  un- 
deniable abuses  of  system, 
and  need  of  reform,  258-259 ; 
care  taken  by  men  of  their 
own  property,  259-260;  as  a 
stimulus  to  development  of 
character,  261 ;  Catholic  doc- 
trine of  rights  of,  will  accom- 
plish what  Socialism  cannot, 
262 ;  administration  of,  the 
best  training  for  administra- 
tion of  public  affairs,  263- 
265 ;  ownership  of,  a  source 
of  social  stability,  265-268; 
fallacies  of  State  ownership, 
273-277 ;  wherein  taxation  of, 
differs  from  socialization,  275- 
276 ;  man's  natural  desire 
for  ownership  of,  284-285 ; 
injustice  of  State  acquisition 
and  control  of,  286  ff. ;  the 
natural  right  to  ownership  of, 
287-289 ;  recognized  methods 
of  acquiring  concrete  rights 
to,  289-293;  obligations  ac- 
companying ownership  of,  293- 
294 ;  distinction  between  con- 
trol and  use  or  enjoyment  of, 
294-297  ;  social  obligations  ac- 
companying ownership  of, 
296  ff. ;  duty  of  the  State 
toward  right  of,  303-304; 
criticism  of  theory  of  absolute 
right  of,  305-300 ;  remedy 
provided  by  the  Church,  for 
abu.scs  against  which  Social- 
iHrii  protests,  300;  judK^ncnt 
of  the  Church,  on  the  wisdom 


386 


INDEX 


of     possession     of,     308-309 ; 

the    Church's    stand    between 

the     two     conflicting     dogmas 

of,  310-311. 
Profit-sharing   systems,    355-356. 
Prophets,    denunciations   by   the, 

adopted  as  a  socialistic  basis, 

227. 
Proudfoot,   S.,  quoted,   207  n. 


R 


Race  suicide,  142-143 ;  made 
rational  by  Socialism,    147. 

Railways,  in  the  socialist  State, 
57;     State-owned,    273-275. 

Religion,  attitude  of  Socialism 
toward,  45  ff.,  153  ff. ;  line 
of  separation  between  the 
State  and,  in  the  Catholic 
view,  67,  68 ;  necessity  of,  to 
existence  of  society,  116  ;  teach- 
ings of  Socialist  Party  of 
Great  Britain  concerning,  170- 
174 ;  anti-Christian  teachings 
of  the  Social  Democratic  Fed- 
eration, 181 ;  nature  of  the 
teachings  of  the  Independent 
Labour  Party,  181-185;  at- 
tacks of  German  Socialists 
on,  184 ;  the  Fabian  Society's 
views  of  Socialism  and,  187  ff. ; 
incompatibility  of  Socialism 
and,  203-207;  -iaewed  as  a 
working-class  soporific,  opium 
of  the  people,  205  ;  the  future, 
of  the  workingman  to  be  "class 
religion,"  314;  the  mistake  of 
turning  out,  from  schools, 
366.  See  also  Christian  So- 
cialism. 

Religious  Orders,  difference  be- 
tween life  of,  and  Socialism, 
233-235. 

Remuneration  for  work  under 
a  socialist  regime,  272-273, 
325-329. 


Reward,  the  hope  of,  as  a  stimu- 
lus to  human  action,  107- 
108 ;  determination  of  char- 
acter of,  proposed  by  man  as 
his  object,  109. 

Roberts,  Peter,  quoted,  342. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  quoted, 
212-213. 

Russell,  Charles  E.,  quoted, 
203. 

Russell,  Hon.  Charles,  certain 
misrepresentations    of,    275. 

S 

Sadler,  Professor,  quoted  on 
denominational     schools,     367. 

Schiiffle,  on  Socialism  and  athe- 
ism, 159. 

Schaeffel,  on  hostility  of  Socialism 
to  religion  and  the  Church, 
161. 

Schools,  133,  134-135;  Catholic 
vs.  secular,  195-197 ;  the  mis- 
take of  turning  religion  out 
of,  366. 

Scott,  Professor,  on  restriction 
of  size  of  families,   142-143. 

Secularization  of  schools,  134, 
367. 

Shaw,  Bernard,  irreverence,  anti- 
Christianity,  and  Socialism  of, 
190 ;    cited,  272. 

Signs,  Christ's  miracles  called, 
220,  222. 

Social  Democratic  Federation, 
teachings  of,  viewed  from 
religious    standpoint,    181. 

Social  Democratic  Party,  open 
antagonism  of,  to  Christianity, 
206. 

Socialism,  as  a  rival  of  the  Pa- 
pacy in  devising  a  remedy  for 
evils  in  the  social  organism, 
35-36 ;  economic  claims  of, 
36  ;  more  than  a  bare  question 
of  economics,  37 ;   a  philosophy 


INDEX 


387 


of  human  progress,  37-38 ; 
set  oyer  against  Christianity, 
38-39 ;  the  irreconcilable  an- 
tagonism between  the  Church 
and,  40  ff.,  153  ff. ;  is  based 
upon  a  materialistic  theory  of 
evolution,  42-45 ;  alliance  be- 
tween atheism  and,  45-46 ; 
deadly  conditions  in  the  logical 
State  of,  55-56;  lack  of  a 
spiritual  ideal  in  the  scheme 
of,  74 ;  recognition  of  impos- 
sibility of  indiWdualism  carried 
to  an  extreme  by,  75-76 ; 
mistake  of  forgetting  that 
true  indi\adualism  is  a  neces- 
sarj'  basis  of  sound  Democracy, 
79  ;  inconsistency  of,  in  specu- 
lating in  futures,  when  rail- 
ing at  Christianity  for  "dealing 
in  futures,"  80;  the  "wait  and 
Bee"  policy  of,  82;  wherein 
specially  lacking  as  compared 
with  Christianity,  87-88 ;  rec- 
ord of  Christian  charity  con- 
trasted with  record  of,  91-94; 
effects  of  Christianity  and  of, 
on  enterprise,  94-96 ;  power 
of  Christianity  on  human  pas- 
sions contrasted  with  that  of, 
96-100;  in  reality  selfishness 
is  being  fostered  by,  102-103  ; 
in  substituting  State  action 
for  individual  action,  inverts 
the  natural  order,  110-112; 
as  a  theory  of  life  and  an  all- 
embracing  ideal  found  to  be 
dangerous  and  insidious,  116; 
and  the  family,  IIH  ff.  ;  to  be 
specially  denounced  and  con- 
demned as  a  menace  to  the 
family,  15(>-15;i;  utterances 
of  its  leaders  prove  it  antiigo- 
nistic  to  Christianity,  155- 
177  ;  gospel  of  redcmpti'in 
through  the  work  of  Hocialistic 
principles    preached    by,    175- 


176 ;  in  England  does  not  dif- 
fer from  continental,  180 ; 
repudiation  of  Christian  So- 
cialism by,  198-202 ;  private 
property  blocks  the  way  of, 
240 ;  tendency  to  apply  name 
to  any  proposals  for  public 
control,  240-241 ;  the  chasm 
between  Catholicism  and,  in 
ultimate  if  not  immediate 
social  reforms,  241-244 ;  ef- 
forts to  enlist  the  Church 
Fathers  in  the  cause,  246- 
247 ;  material  for  arguments 
of,  against  private  ownership, 
254-257 ;  question  of  ability 
of,  to  carry  out  its  promises, 
257  £f. ;  objections  to,  on  the 
score  of  leading  to  reckless 
public  expenditure  through 
lack  of  training  in  adminis- 
tration of  private  affairs,  259- 
261  ;  in  doing  away  with  the 
family,  does  away  with  the 
best  school  of  citizenship  and 
administration  of  affairs,  262- 
265 ;  would  prejudice  the 
healthy  development  of  char- 
acter by  taking  away  pri- 
vate capital,:  262-265 ;  would 
weaken  social  stability,  265- 
268  ;  questions  concerning  right 
of  employers  to  enjoy  surplus 
values,  different  pay  for  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  work,  and 
State  ownership,  taxation,  etc., 
269-277;  and  the  duties  of 
ownership,  278  ff. ;  destruc- 
tion of  man's  freedom  by, 
283  ff.  ;  unnaturalness  of,  283; 
the  essence  of,  that  all  means 
of  production  should  b(^  trans- 
ferred to  the  community,  300- 
307 ;  the  promises  made  by, 
312-329;  and  wjciiil  reforma- 
tion, 330  ff. ;  good  found  in, 
in   way  of  example  of  energy 


388 


INDEX 


set  by,  and  in  calling  attention 
to  social  evils,  330-331 ;  spe- 
cific grounds  for  condemnation 
of,  332-333. 

I' Socialism,  Its  Growth  and  Out- 
come," quoted  and  criticised, 
145-146. 

"Socialism,  Positive  and  Nega- 
tive," quoted,  146. 

"Socialism  vs.  Religion,"  pam- 
phlet, quoted,  171-174. 

Socialist  Party  of  Great  Britain, 
teachings  of,  on  religion,  170- 
174. 

Socialist  Primer,  the,  135. 

Social  justice,  the  term,  302  n. 

Social  science,  incentive  given 
to,  by  Socialism,  331. 

Social  stability,  private  owner- 
ship as  a  source  of,  265-268. 

Society,  the  Catholic  view  of, 
59  ff. ;  the  biological  concept 
of,  47-55. 

Soul,  individuality  of  the,  76-79. 

Sozial  Demokrat,  quoted  on  the 
enmity  between  Christianity 
and  Socialism,  163. 

Spargo,  John,  quoted  on  real 
significance  of  Socialism,  37 ; 
mentioned,  56 ;  on  Socialism 
and  Christianity,  156-157 ; 
views  Christianity  as  a  stage 
only  in  the  process  of  soul  evo- 
lution, 177 ;  mentioned,  324, 
327. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  cited,  56 ;  on 
the  necessity  of  religion  to 
society,  116. 

State,  the  socialist  view  of  the, 
42-51 ;  misconception  of  the, 
as  a  real  organism  in  which 
man  is  but  a  cell,  49-55 ;  a 
foreshadowing  of  final  out- 
come of  socialist  view  of, 
65-56 ;  the  Catholic  view  of, 
as  opposed  to  the  socialist, 
59-70 ;     two    purposes    of,    to 


protect  man's  rights  and  to 
assist  him  to  do  what  he  can- 
not do  for  himself,  63-64; 
duties  regarding  economic  mat- 
ters, 66-67 ;  not  concerned 
with  morals  and  religion  of 
individuals,  67 ;  authority  of, 
limited  to  matters  pertaining 
to  the  general  welfare,  67- 
68 ;  from  the  Catholic  stand- 
point a  God-given  institution, 
69-71 ;  sacrifice  of  the  in- 
dividual for  the,  by  Socialism, 
83 ;  attitude  of,  toward  own- 
ership of  property,  according 
to  Socialism  and  the  Church, 
112-114;  function  of,  to  pro- 
tect man  and  his  property, 
rather  than  to  absorb,  275- 
277  ;  duty  of,  toward  the  right 
of  property,  303-305;  im- 
possibility of  organizing  a 
Sociahst,  323-325. 

State  ownership,  fallacies  of, 
273-275. 

Staudlein,  "Universal  Church 
History"   by,   quoted,   31. 

Suicide,  significance  of  number 
of  cases  of,  in  United  States, 
366. 

Surplus  value,  right  of  employer 
to,  269-272. 

Sweating,  in  the  United  States, 
269  ;   in  England,  337. 


Taxation  vs.  socialization  of  prop- 
erty, 275-277. 

TertuUian  and  Socialism,  231- 
232. 

Theocracy,  errors  in  reasoning 
of  Christian  Socialists  on  the, 
225-227. 

Thomas  of  Aquin,  St.,  biological 
concept  of  society  used  by, 
51 ;    quoted,   64 ;    teaching  as 


INDEX 


389 


to  right  of  man  to  acquire 
necessities  for  maintenance  of 
his  life^  250  ;  on  ownership  and 
use  of  property,  293-294,  295- 
296,  309-310. 

Thomas  of  Canterbury,  St.,  24. 

Thrift,  not  a  plank  in  the  plat- 
form of  Socialism,  202-203. 

U 

United  Kingdom,  statistics  of 
poverty  in,  339. 

United  States,  divorces  in,  131 ; 
conditions  among  the  poor  in, 
339-345. 

Use  of  property,  distinction  be- 
tween control  and,  294-297. 


Volkszeitung,  New  York,  quoted 
on  disbelief  of  Socialists  in  the 
Saviour,  162. 

Vorwarts,  the  Berlin,  quoted  on 
hostility  of  Socialism  to  reli- 
gion, 161-162 ;  parodies  of 
Christian  institutions  in,  163- 
164. 

W 

Wage,  the  obligation  to  pay  a 
just,  299. 

Wages,  rates  of,  for  different 
classes  of  work,  272-273  ;  ques- 
tion of  adjustment  of,  in  the 
Socialist  Commonwealth,  325- 
329 ;  low  rates  of,  in  England, 
337;  in  United  States.  340- 
343 ;  the  securing  of  living, 
by  legislation,  350-353. 

Wahre  Jnkoh,  parodies  of  Chris- 
tian institutions  in  the,  164. 


Ward,  Professor,  quoted,  45. 

Wealth,  viewed  as  a  trust,  297. 

Welfare  work,  356-357. 

Wells,  H.  G.,  on  the  home,  140; 
on  the  anti-Christian  tone  of 
Socialism  of  Marx  and  Engels, 
156 ;  on  the  relations  between 
Socialism  and  religion,  165 ; 
on  the  anti-religious  tone  of 
the  Social  Democratic  Federa- 
tion, 181 ;  assertion  that  Brit- 
ish Socialism  is  not  antagonistic 
to  the  Church,  186-187  ;  analy- 
sis of  his  appeal  to  the  Fabian 
Society,  187  ff. ;  analysis  of 
propositions  of,  concerning  the 
Catholic  Church  and  Socialism, 
190-195  ;  quoted  on  education 
under  a  socialist  regime,  195- 
196. 

Westcott,  Bishop,  quoted,  127. 

Whalley  Abbey,  25. 

Woman,  proper  position  given 
to,  by  Christianity,  126-127; 
the  question  of,  in  the  socialist 
plan,  144-147. 

"Woman,"  Bocialist  book,  145. 

Workingmen,  present  condition 
contrasted  with  position  in 
Dark  Ages,  18-20;  debt  of, 
to  the  Church,  20-23;  the 
Church  takes  the  part  of,  now 
as  earlier,  32;  Leo  XIII's 
Encyclical  on  Labour  called  the 
charter  of  the,  32-34 ;  right 
of,  to  a  share  in  surplus  value, 
269-271  ;  appeals  of  Socialism 
to,  312  ff.;  the  coming  "  Class 
Religion"  of,  314;  social 
wrongs  of,  333-345. 

Wright,  Carroll  D.,  on  labour 
legislation  in  United  States, 
349-350. 


npHE  following  pages  contain  advertisements 
of  works  by  Abbot  Gasquet,  D.D.,  O.S.B. 


WORKS  BY  ABBOT  GASQUET,  D.D.,  O.S.B. 


JUST  PUBLISHED 

Elngland  Under  the  Old  Religion 

Cloth,  8vo,  $2.00  7iet 

The  Eve  of  the  Reformation 

FOURTH  EDITION" 

Studies  in  the  Religious  Life  and  Thought  of  the  Eng- 
lish People  in  the  Period  preceding  the  Rejection  of 
the  Roman  Jurisdiction 

"  Dr.  Gasquet  has  produced  a  book  which  will  set  many  men  think- 
ing. He  has  done  an  excellent  piece  of  work,  and  has  offered  to  stu- 
dents of  history  a  highly  interesting  problem."  —  AthencBum. 

Cloth,  8vo,  $2.00  net 

Henry  VIII  and  the  English  Monasteries 

SIXTH  EDITION 

"The  work  of  Abbot  Gasquet  on  the  dissolution  of  the  English 
monasteries  is  so  well  known  and  so  widely  appreciated  that  little  may 
be  said  to  commend  the  new  edition.  The  criticism  of  nearly  twenty 
years  has  served  only  to  show  that  the  views,  expressed  by  the  author 
in  the  original  edition,  are  shared  by  every  candid  student  of  the 
events  of  that  period."  —  Scottish  Historical  Review. 

Cloth,  Svo,  S2.J0  net 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

PublisherB  64-66  7ifth  Avenue  New  York 


WORKS  BY  ABBOT  GASQUET,  D.D.,  O.S.B. 


The  Black  Death  of  1348  and  1349 

SECOND  EDITION 
"  By  far  the  most  interesting  and  exhaustive  record  to  be  found  of 
this  most  appalling  visitation."  —  The  London  Morning  Post. 

Cloth,  8vo,  $2.00  net 

The  Last  Abbot  of  Glastonbury, 
and  Other  Essays 

With  II  Illustrations 
"The  volume  was  wanted,  for  although  the  story  is  a  tragedy  from 
beginning  to  end,  yet  there  is  an  element  of  noble  heroism  in  the 
dramatis  persona  which  relieves  the  pervading  gloom.     The  book  is  a 
considerable  contribution  to  the  literature  of  this  painful  subject," 

—  AthentKum. 
Cloth,  8vo,  $2,00  net 

The  Old  English  Bible,  and  Other  Essays 

SECOND  EDITION 

Cloth,  8vo,  $2,2£  net 


Henry 


III  and  the  Church 

A  Study  of  his  Ecclesiastical  Policy,  and  of  the  Rela- 
tions between  England  and  Rome 

"  It  is  written  with  no  desire  to  defend  the  Papacy  from  the  charges 
which  were  made  even  by  the  faithful  at  the  time,  and  it  may  fairly 
claim  to  represent  an  unbiassed  survey  of  the  evidence." 

Cloth,  8vo,  $4.00  net 


THE   MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Pulilishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  Tork 


HX 

556  Vaup;han . 
V46s  Socialism 
from  the 


Christian 


standpoint 


N0V2Q195Q 


Library  Bureau  Cat.  no.    il|l-^ 


JUL  i 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


■^>r<*. 


NOV2  0l95t) 
RFC'L 


Form  L-9-35m-8,'28 


006  357  269  7 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILI 


AA    000  430  025    7 


HNIVKRSITY  of  CALltOKWi-. 

AT 

LOS  ANGKLES 

LIBKARY 


